Ninth Circuit Denounces Donald Trump’s Refugee Orders, Says Not Justified
The three-judge decision declared that President Trump must justify his policies in court by citing agency recommendations, and that cannot unilaterally curb the annual inflow of refugees from 100,000 to 50,000 and even though prior presidents have raised the and lowered the annual inflow of refugees without interference from the judges.
“Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show, ” the judges declared in their 86-page decision, tiled continuing:
Throughout their decision, the three judges — all of whom were appointed by former President Bill Clinton– insisted that the President needs to justify his immigration decisions, including the March 2017 Executive Order, dubbed “EO2 “, by detailing the reasons why migrants or refugees should be excluded despite the impossibility of predicting future behavior based on incomplete records and flexible, hidden personal views.
The lawsuit is titled “State of HawaIii: Ismail elShikh vs Donald J. Trump. The case was brought by an Egyptian immigrant cleric based in Hawaii, who claimed Trump’s policy could block his old mother from moving to Hawaii. The claim was supported by the ACLU, Islamist groups, and many elite lawyers.
The decision by the California judges will either be approved or rejected by the Supreme Court, as soon as the fall.
Much of the executive order was already blocked by another group of progressive judges in Virginia, who claimed that it is unconstitutional because of Trump’s election-campaign criticism of Islam. The California court did not bring up Trump’s campaign comments or claim religious animus, but repeatedly emphasized that Trump needs support from agency reports and the courts before he can rewrite the nation’s immigration policies.
To justify its claim for a greater bureaucratic and judicial role in national immigration policy, the court had to deal with a 1952 law giving the president near-total authority over immigration policy. According to the court:
In response, the court argues that: “Section 1182 (f) [of the law] requires that the President find that the entry of a class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, ” adding:
Also, the president has not produced documents from the bureaucracies to back up his decisions, says the court:
The president has not explained in detail why groups of refugees or individual migrants from the six target nations should be excluded, the court declares.
The court also relied on President Barack Obama’s judgment that upping the inflow of refugees to 110,000 a year is safe, saying:
The decision is found here .
