Immigration

The case of Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick

Featured image Of course noncitizens never vote, a faithful reader sarcastically writes. Our reader practices immigration law and directs us to the Seventh Circuit opinion in Fitzpatrick v. Sessions, hot off the press yesterday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit opinion briefly summarizes the factual background: Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick, a citizen of Peru, had lived in the United States for three years when »

Is It “Deeply Offensive” to Enforce the Law?

Featured image It is, apparently, if the law relates to immigration. At Penn State, someone put up posters urging students and others to report violations of the immigration laws. This is the poster: Is it a civic duty to report illegal aliens? That is certainly a defensible position. In general, citizens should cooperate with law enforcement. But Penn State’s administration didn’t see it that way: “The posters are unsigned and appear to »

Somebody get me out of here

Featured image The federal courts of appeals routinely operate in randomly assigned panels of three judges. Appeals from their decisions may be taken to the United States Supreme Court and are heard mostly as a matter of the Supreme Court’s discretion. When a federal appellate decision conflicts with a previous decision of the same court, or with a decision of the United States Supreme Court, or (more rarely) presents a question of »

Why the 9th Circuit Order Was Wrong, and What Trump Should Do About It

Featured image At Defining Ideas, Michael McConnell, a former federal appellate judge and now a distinguished professor at Stanford Law School, addresses the 9th Circuit panel’s decision denying the Trump administration’s motion for an emergency stay, and finds it wanting. Michael makes the same point I made here, but he makes it better: The Ninth Circuit did not hold that aliens abroad who do not presently hold visas or green cards have »

A Ninth Circuit footnote [With Comment by John] [Updated]

Featured image The Ninth Circuit has ruled against the Trump administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal of Judge Robart’s order restraining the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order calling a brief timeout on the admission of refugees from seven designated countries (a/k/a “travel ban”) in the Ninth Circuit just concluded. This can’t be a surprise to anyone who tuned in to the oral argument of the motion. The Ninth Circuit »

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling — limited in impact but full of mischief

Featured image Dan McLaughlin at NRO has written a good analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling against the Trump administration’s travel ban. His analysis is comprehensive. In this post, I will quote what I consider the most significant portion: [T]he court found that the government was not likely to win its case – the standard on a preliminary injunction, before all the evidence has been heard – on whether the executive order »

9th Circuit’s Opinion Is Wrong, But Its Impact Is Limited

Featured image As Paul has already noted, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the government’s motion for an emergency stay of the order entered by Judge James Robart blocking implementation of President Trump’s temporary travel ban. The decision is a bad one, I think, but it also has only limited import and won’t stand in the way of more carefully crafted orders to be issued in »

Ninth Circuit maintains suspension of Trump’s order on travel [UPDATED TWICE]

Featured image A unanimous panel of Ninth Circuit judges has just refused to reinstate President Trump’s executive order banning certain travel into the U.S. The ruling, though inconsistent with the law, will surprise few who know anything about the Ninth Circuit. I’m sure we’ll discuss the merits once we have the opportunity to analyze the opinion. For now, let’s consider the administration’s legal options. It could seek rehearing by the Ninth Circuit »

Why not the “A Team,” Part Two

Featured image Yesterday, I asked why, during the oral argument before a Ninth Circuit panel, the Justice Department’s “A Team” wasn’t deployed to defend the Trump administration’s executive order limiting entry into the country. By the “A Team” I meant Noel Francisco, the acting solicitor general who until recently was a partner at the law firm of Jones Day. Both Francisco and acting assistant attorney general Chad Readler, also formerly of Jones »

Why didn’t the “A Team” defend Trump’s immigration order? [UPDATED]

Featured image Scott has said that August Flentje, the Justice Department lawyer who defended the administration’s executive order limiting entry to this country, did not argue effectively. Even taking into account how difficult it can be for an appellate advocate to deal with a hostile panel, especially over the telephone, I must agree. I’m told that Flentje won an award from Eric Holder for leading the team that argued that DOMA was »

Sen. Cotton’s immigration bill

Featured image Sen. Tom Cotton and Sen. David Perdue have introduced a bill that would cut legal immigration to the U.S. in half. The legislation is called the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act. Its goal is to restore historical levels of immigration in order to give working Americans a fair shot at wealth creation. The current system fails to do this. Rather, as Sen. Cotton argues, by accepting an »

In the Ninth Circuit

Featured image The oral argument of the Trump administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal of Judge Robart’s order restraining the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order calling a brief timeout on the admission of refugees from seven designated countries (a/k/a “travel ban”) in the Ninth Circuit just concluded. The Ninth Circuit made the oral argument accessible by live stream. To no one’s surprise, the oral argument did not go well »

Ninth Circuit update

Featured image Over the weekend the Trump administration filed an emergency motion for an immediate stay and a motion for stay pending appeal of Judge Robart’s order restraining the Trump administration from enforcing its executive order calling a brief timeout on the admission of refugees from seven designated countries (a/k/a “travel ban”). The motion for an emergency stay was denied by a two-judge administrative panel of the Ninth Circuit while briefing was »

Super Bowl Revisited

Featured image Scott and Paul have already written about last night’s classic, and Steve has added a picture gallery. I just want to comment on a couple of aspects of the evening. First, the ads. I didn’t pay attention to most of them. Half the time, I can’t figure out what is being advertised, at least not until the end. And there are quite a few ads that I can tell feature »

Ninth Circuit denies stay

Featured image Yesterday the Department of Justice has filed an emergency motion for an immediate stay and a motion for stay pending appeal of Judge Robart’s order restraining the Trump administration from enforcing its executive order calling a brief timeout on the admission of refugees from seven designated countries (a/k/a “travel ban”). The motion has been posted online here. The motion characterizes Judge Robart’s order as an injunction (which is appealable) rather »

A strange ruling from a strange judge

Featured image Jerome Woehrle at Liberty Unyielding provides a revealing look at James Robart, the federal judge who enjoined President Trump’s executive order temporarily restricting entry to the U.S. from seven highly problematic nations. Scott has observed that Judge Robart’s opinion is nearly devoid of legal analysis. Woehrle expands on this criticism: Judge James Robart’s order has no legal basis, and barely pretends to. [The] order against Trump sheds little light on »

Restrain this

Featured image At The Stranger Sydney Brownstone provides a summary of the temporary restraining order entered by Judge James Robart staying enforcement “on a nationwide basis” of President Trump’s timeout on immigration from seven countries previously identified by the Obama administration. The Seattle Times has posted an excited story on the order together with a video of the hearing on it (below). This case has been brought in federal district court against »