Federal court halts Trumps immigration ban

[rug]

Source: The Verge

Step one in a long fight to come

by Nilay Patel@reckless
Jan 28, 2017, 8:50pm EST

The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued an emergency stay halting President Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry to the US from seven majority-Muslim countries tonight, following widespread protests at airports around the country.

The court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by the ACLU on behalf of Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, who were denied entry to the US upon landing at JFK airport in New York City and detained indefinitely by Customs and Border Patrol. Darweesh spent a decade working for the United States military in Iraq as an interpreter and engineer and had been granted an entry visa after background checks; Alshawi had been granted a visa in order to join his wife and son who are already permanent residents of the US after their similar service with the US military.

Trump’s executive order halts all immigration from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria. The ban was issued late on Friday, leading to widespread confusion about how it would be implemented and enforced, chaos as those decisions were made quickly and without a great deal of transparency, and controversy as the essential legality of a ban that effectively targets Muslims was called into question.

Protests have erupted at airports around the country in response to the ban, and the tech industry has signaled significant opposition to it in tones ranging from measured to morally outraged.

The court’s stay is temporary; it’s clear that the White House will argue to have it reinstated as soon as possible.



Read more: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/14427086/federal-court-halts-trumps-immigration-ban

[enough]

1. Kudos to the ACLU once again. NT

[llmart]

25. This is why we must donate to them now more than ever before.

Give as much as you can because we are going to need them in this war.

[enough]

60. Did that on Inauguration Day, but thinking we may need to

do it again.

[llmart]

97. Great!

I will be sending some today. I'm a senior on a fixed income but this is too important, so I'll just tighten the old belt a little tighter and send some money on a monthly basis. They're going to need all they can get.

[lark]

99. Yeah, I will renew my membership as well.

Thinks it's a necessary move to combat the utter madness, unlawfulness, and hate in DC.

[2theleft]

73. Signed up for a monthly donation the day after the election.

Send more as I am able. Absolutely agree with you. Everyone who can donate to them needs to them. They are going to need all the funding they can get.

[llmart]

98. I'm going to do that today...

This is an outrage. I want my country back from these neanderthals who are spitting all over the Statue of Liberty.

Stupid trump voters probably don't even know what it says on the Statue of Liberty.

[George II]

2. FUCKING Hooray!!!!!

[tenorly]

3. The dicktator will probably order Homeland Security to ignore the ruling.

Interesting times, these.

[Stonepounder]

13. Oh, I hope he does. Would love to see him place himself above the courts.

That would precipitate a Constitutional Crisis that would force the GOP to boot Trump. The alternative would be for them to support him, right up until Trump decided he didn't need Congress.

[tenorly]

28. I wish I could share your optimism.

Should he pull something like that, my guess is that GOP congresscritters will trip all over themselves in all the talk shows trying to rationalize and justify their dear leader.

[lastlib]

69. (...followed by "Reichstag fire"........)

[Fantastic Anarchist]

107. Then we invade Poland ...

Trump is probably that stupid.

[orangecrush]

75. Just read on another thread

That customs is refusing to abide by the court order.

This is going to get interesting...

[Stonepounder]

77. Link?

[orangecrush]

80. Don't remember

Sorry.

[orangecrush]

81. Here ya go

http://dcist.com/2017/01/photos_as_some_families_reunite_at.php

[Stonepounder]

109. Thanks. I couldn't believe it was true when I first heard.

Talk about your Constitutional Crisis. The Executive Branch refusing to obey a Judicial order? This IS NOT my country!!

[orangecrush]

110. We must all

Do what we can.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

4. Finally...someone with some balls to stand up to the Cult Leader in Chief

eom

[starshine00]

7. hopefully more will follow

unlike past presidents though I think the Donald is going to have a very very hard time understanding separation of powers in this country since his experience is imperialism in the business world...I imagine he is going to throw an incredible tantrum about this and it is really scary the way he likes to retaliate against people.

[adigal]

20. And i thinkmthe judge is female...his head will spin round and round nt

[OldRedneck]

29. FEmale judge . . .

. . . . too bad she's not also Hispanic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[adigal]

38. I think she had an Irish name...watch Trump go Irish immigrants now!

That will work out well for him!!!

[rug]

46. Judge Ann Donnelly

On November 20, 2014, President Obama nominated Donnelly to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the seat vacated by Judge Sandra L. Townes, who took senior status on May 1, 2015.

On December 16, 2014 her nomination was returned to the President due to the sine die adjournment of the 113th Congress. On January 7, 2015, President Obama renominated her to the same position. She received a hearing before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on May 6, 2015. On June 4, 2015 her nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote. On October 20, 2015 the Senate voted 95-2 in favor of final confirmation. She received her judicial commission on October 21, 2015.

She took the bench 15 months ago - 16 months after president Obama nominated her.

The republicans are kicking each other for not stalling longer.

[murielm99]

67. Just wait until some

of those federal judges start getting death threats. It has happened to others who opposed Trump, like the labor leader in Indiana. Many of those trumpets are too stupid to hide their identities. I can't wait to see some of the prosecuted.

[erronis]

108. Just curious - prosecuted by whom?

We live in an alt-reality where the US constitution and laws do not matter to these perps.

The only power that exists and can combat the slimeball is the people and the military (unless they have been secretly rendered ineffectual.) I certainly hope some rational technician can unwire trump from any means of pressing buttons.

[hrmjustin]

5. Thank you ACLU!

[riversedge]

6. My donation for the month just went to the ACLU. I have a feeling they will need it (small as

it is).

[riversedge]

8. Tweet: Trump Administration will regroup and try again, but thank God we still have one sane branch

leoluminary Retweeted
Jon Favreau ?@jonfavs 7m7 minutes ago

Trump Administration will regroup and try again, but thank God we still have one sane branch of government.

Link to tweet

[rug]

9. When is the last time a Presidential Executive Order was blocked in less that 12 hours?

The thousands who were out tonight will still be there when they try again.

[riversedge]

11. The ban was signed Friday wasn't it? late Friday I think. But your point is good--it was quick

[rug]

12. You are correct. Here's the Complaint the ACLU filed today.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3436624-ACLU-Complaint.html

Kudos to the ACLU and the court for acting so swiftly.

Not to mention the thousands who got to JFK within hours of the detentions.

[bucolic_frolic]

34. 'Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights'

IOW, there was no reason to detain them, one had served the US as
interpreter and contractor, the other had family here already, and all were
associated with the US military.

This is what happens when you rush through shallow, poorly conceived
ideas and don't pay attention to details and implications.

Amazing ACLU work

[rug]

39. I'm trying to get the Order but the court's website is swamped.

[rug]

63. The decision and order are at this link:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/28/us/politics/trump-darweesh-decision-stay-refugee-ban.html

[riversedge]

10. K and R and pic from JFK..

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/otMJL5EGjhnZtqGsJRA7bMsAZl8=/0x0:3000x2002/720x480/filters:focal(1643x989:2123x1469)/cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52970245/632945672.0.jpg

[Dopers_Greed]

14. I bet Cheeto Benito's face is turning Flamin' Hot red

[leftyladyfrommo]

15. Thank God. Stop the madness. nt

[NCjack]

16. The Trump Admin. (inc. Kellyanne) better get used to this. We

have loaded ACLU with cash. See ya'll in Federal Court.

[underpants]

21. Trump has lived by lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. Wait until he finds out

the finite resources of the DOJ.

[elmac]

17. will be one of many court orders against STDs

stupid Trump Decisions

[adigal]

18. Count down to the tweet......and I think it was a woman judge? 3,2,1.....

Add SNL, and Trump may actually stroke out tonight.

[llmart]

30. I said in another thread...

that I can't wait until we see him stroke out. He's a walking time bomb with all that blubber and anger in the mix.

[dae]

19. K&R...go for 🤗 Meltdown.

[democrank]

22. To every protestor, every lawyer, the ACLU.....THANK YOU!

Resist!

[Tess49]

23. Thank goodness! I've been so worried about a family I saw on the news tonight!!

A man and his wife and children were stranded. They had quit their jobs, sold their home, and spent $5,000 getting here. They didn't know what to do. I hope they didn't turn back.

[Sophiegirl]

24. Hurray!!

If protests continue, I will still try my best to provide water and snacks to protester.

[OldRedneck]

26. Constitutional crisis on the way . . .

This is HUGE defeat for the Trumpster!! No doubt administration will appeal.

I suspect SCOTUS will tell him to go fuck himself.

Constitutional crisis in 5, 4, 3, . . . .

[FBaggins]

32. That's unlikely in this case

This isn't going to be popular, but I'd say that it's unlikely that the temporary stay lasts for very long.

There just isn't much room legally or constitutionally here. It's bad foreign policy, but it's entirely within the powers of the executive.

[rug]

37. No it isn't.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (emphasis added).

Section 1, Amendment 14.

[FBaggins]

40. Not sure how you even think that's relevant.

No state is involved here - nor are any of the detained within their jurisdictions.

[rug]

43. Leaving aside the Port Authority, which operates JFK, how's this?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fifth Amendment.

To forestall - even - a pedantic objection that this is not a criminal act, read the bold part.

[FBaggins]

47. They don't operate ALL of JFK

You aren't in the US until you clear customs.

Nor is 5A at all relevant here. No person who isn't a citizen has a "right" to enter another country...and therefore cannot be "deprived" of that right by denying them entry.

[rug]

49. You do realize the TRO could not have been granted unless it was shown there is a likelihood

the petitioners will prevail on the merits, don't you?

Not to mention that anyone in JFK airport is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and its Constitution.

[FBaggins]

57. In the mind of one judge, yes

It's highly unlikely that the ruling will stand.

Not to mention that anyone in JFK airport is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and its Constitution.

Actually, when they haven't entered the country yet, they're entirely under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. An alien who has "arrived" at a port of entry but has not cleared customs has not "entered" the country and is not afforded any Constitutional protections.

[onenote]

58. Not necessarily

The test for injunctive relief has four prongs. Where one prong, such as the irreparable harm prong, is very strong, the courts will not necessarily require that a likelihood of success be shown -- as long as there is some chance of success, it can be enough.

[rug]

61. Here's the decision and order:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/28/us/politics/trump-darweesh-decision-stay-refugee-ban.html

[onenote]

62. Thanks. Great that they made that finding.

[FBaggins]

64. In this case, the judge did rule that there was a likelihood of success.

I have no idea where she got that notion... but it is in the ruling.

[onenote]

65. Yep. Very glad to see that.

[treestar]

87. Theses are legal entrants

If he has no legal ground to deny admission how is it in his power.? He cannot change a law with executive orders. It is like saying he could impose a tax that is not in the internal revenue act, or decide not to enforce a patent that was granted.

[FBaggins]

89. You have it backward

You are correct that a president could not use an executive order to overcome a law (in cases where Congress rules) but it's also true that Congress has no ability to pass a law that overcomes constitutional executive authority.

International affairs are almost exclusively under the President's authority. Congressional action is needed for wars, treaties, and some appointments, but not this. Short of impeachment, the president could ban all left-handed redheads if he wanted to.

[treestar]

90. There are immigration laws, and he is violating them

Laws passed by previous Congresses. "International affairs are almost exclusively under the President's authority" does not mean he can deny legal entrants, people with valid visas/green cards, on a whim.

There are people who can't get back to their jobs! People who already are vetted and had green cards and were living here and happened to take a trip just at the wrong time! With no proof they as individuals are any danger!

He is not a dictator in international affairs either.

[FBaggins]

91. There are immigration laws?

You mean... like this one?

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f)

There are people who can't get back to their jobs! People who already are vetted and had green cards and were living here and happened to take a trip just at the wrong time! With no proof they as individuals are any danger!

Those are all reasons to oppose this ridiculous policy. They aren't, unfortunately, reasons that he can be forced to end it.


He is not a dictator in international affairs either.

Only because he can be impeached. Otherwise, he might as well be. The Supreme Court has previously refered to it as the "plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations-a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress"

[treestar]

92. He's not using that law

Where is the finding they are detrimental? Or any finding about failures of the airlines?

[FBaggins]

94. Actually, he is... but he doesn't need to

Where is the finding they are detrimental?

Right in the order.

[treestar]

95. That should be challenged

in the courts then. Don't be so willing to let him have dictatorial powers. He is exactly the type President that the separation of powers is to save us from.

If it doesn't work, it proves the republic does not function. That we only had non dictator presidents before because of their ethics.

[FBaggins]

96. That's what the ACLU is trying to do

I'm just saying that they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on.

Don't be so willing to let him have dictatorial powers. He is exactly the type President that the separation of powers is to save us from.

That's why I said "short of impeachment". Congress always has the ability to remove him.

[Ccarmona]

36. By Whom?

There's no AG. There's no one vetting the legality of King Donald's decrees.
The ACLU has real lawyers who know the law and how to gain proper access for the cases they bring. Once again Trump is in way over his head.

[AlexSFCA]

27. good news

this is a good development, hopefully, the world will see that americans hate trump. Trump is gonna get unhinged. With current SC, I think SC will block this outright.

[Hekate]

31. Remind me to rejoin the ACLU

[rug]

33. Rejoin the ACLU.

https://action.aclu.org/secure/he-discriminated-we-sued?s_src=UNV170101INA&ms=web_hero_Inaug_FOIA

[DRoseDARs]

44. Can't because the full site is down. High traffic (because everyone is signing up).

[Hekate]

79. Hah!

[Xipe Totec]

35. Executive Orders subject to Extreme Judicial Vetting. nt

[dhill926]

41. game on....fuckers....

[orangecrush]

76. What you said. n/t

[GliderGuider]

93. I think the whole world just woke up.

Game on, indeed.

[paleotn]

42. Damn good news!

Trump's "Justice" department can argue all they want. The EO obviously violates the Hart-Cellar Act.

[iluvtennis]

45. So, happy!!! Now to make the temporary stay a permanent ruling. nt

[uppityperson]

48. Here's a NYT article with more info

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html?&_r=0

[rug]

50. Thanks but I'm paywalled.

[uppityperson]

52. They are not sending people back, but not letting them in to the US but in case by case basis

[rug]

54. Did the article state when the hearing on the permanent injunction will be held?

[uppityperson]

56. Sorry, I don't remember and want to save my last views

[Fast Walker 52]

53. can you use another browser?... you can get around the 10 per month limit

[rug]

55. Ah! I'll try!

[rug]

59. It worked! The text of the Order is at the link.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/28/us/politics/trump-darweesh-decision-stay-refugee-ban.html

[irisblue]

66. go incognito you can get past

[Occulus]

86. Copy the link into an incognito/private mode window

to defeat the pay wall.

That works for WaPo as well.

[Fast Walker 52]

51. I started monthly donations to the ACLU after tRump was elected

glad to see them stepping up-- this is huge

[Blue Idaho]

104. That was my first act after Tump victory was announced.

Looks like I need to make the donation ongoing...

[TrollBuster9090]

68. I that judge must have been "a Mexican" too?...

[rug]

70. By way of Royal Oak, Michigan

[AllaN01Bear]

71. yabbadabb dooooo

[stonecutter357]

72. K&R!

[Flatpicker]

74. Let us see where this goes

If DT loses his shit over this challenge, it may be the opportunity to remove him from the position.

[briv1016]

82. It's 2am so it should start any minute now.

[manicraven]

78. Once again, tRump proves he's incompetent and overreaching.

[bigdarryl]

83. Trump regime to IGNORE court order

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/29/1626787/-Trump-regime-says-of-court-rulings-Muslim-ban-remains-in-full-complete-total-effect#view-story

[FBaggins]

88. Not exactly

The court order says that he can't send them back. His order is that they can't enter. Both could continue without conflict, but it would mean a real life version of Tom Hanks' movie "Terminal"

[Stuart G]

84. k and r...

[Stuart G]

85. Number 1 story around the World...k and r...nt

[progree]

100. None of the judges have ordered a halt to the detentions or the release of anyone

but merely to stop the deportations. At least not in any of the 3 judges' rulings that I'm aware of -- New York, Virginia, and Seattle Washington.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016175764

[INdemo]

101. If Trump fails to follow this court order then

doesn't this become an impeachable offense by failure to obey all laws of the United States?
In this case Trump is failing to obey the constitution violating the first amendment?

[progree]

102. What court order is Trump / DHS not following?

No court orders that I know of order detentions to stop or for anyone to be released. Only that deportations be stopped.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016175764

[INdemo]

103. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028559232

[progree]

105. I don't think the admin/DHS violated the first 3 court rulings. But there is a 4th one ...

The Brooklyn Judge cited in this article (Judge Ann M. Donnelly) did not say anything about detentions or releasing any detainees. She just ordered a stop to deportations. Similarly for the judge in Virginia and Seattle, WA.

As far as I know, the DHS has not deported anyone since these judges' orders. There is a New York Post (the Murdoch rag that Trump calls his "paper or record&quot story to the contrary, but I've seen no confirmation of it, even from the ACLU website, even though it quotes someone from the ACLU.

However, I'm happy to be updated, though on the Massachusetts ruling that does address the detentions ...

Finally, petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief with the federal court overnight in Boston, Massachusetts. US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs and US Magistrate Judge Gail Dein found that the detention and removal of “the petitioners and others similarly situated would violate their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection as guaranteed by the United States Constitution,” and that should the detained individuals be removed from the US, they would likely “suffer irreparable harm.”

The judges ordered that the Department of Homeland Security would be required to limit “secondary screening to comply with the regulations and statutes in effect prior to the Executive Order,” were not permitted to “detain or remove” approved refugees, anyone who held a valid Visa, green card holders, and other individuals “who, absent the executive order, would be legally authorized to enter the United States.” The ruling stipulated that the United States Marshall of Massachusetts would be served with the order and required to enforce it, and that Border Patrol and Customs should notify airlines arriving at Boston’s Logan Airport of the order and that individuals on the flights would not be detained or deported. The judges noted that this ruling would remain in effect for seven days, with another hearing scheduled before then.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/29/14430082/four-federal-courts-ruled-trump-immigration-ban

Clearly, the majority of detentions violate that one.

It's hard to keep up to date!

[ailsagirl]

106. KUDOS TO ACLU!!!!!