Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian Blog

Key Points From the 9th Circuit's Ruling, Which Puts a Temporary Freeze on Trump's Immigration Order

Posted by Matt Schmidt | Feb 15, 2017 | 0 Comments

Last week the 9th Circuit kept in place a nationwide Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on President Trump's controversial Executive Order on immigration, a broad order that in part includes banned travel from seven Muslim-majority countries and that would significantly affect certain families, students, teachers, people of the Muslim religion, people from certain parts of the world and people of varying immigration statuses. Here are the key, basic parts of the 9th Circuit's ruling:

1. The legal procedure of this case is extremely complicated, involving several different claims for relief (temporary and permanent) and levels of the federal court system. The 9th Circuit's ruling temporarily prevents the government from implementing the Order until the bigger, more conclusive legal battle is resolved. The Trump administration has an uphill battle, however, because the ruling is primarily based on the court's belief Trump will lose the bigger battle.

2.  The court held that individual states had standing to sue over this Order, primarily because the Order has a substantial impact on the students and faculty of the states' universities. 

3. One important issue was whether one federal district court could rule enforcement of a TRO upon the entire nation. Under these circumstances, the court held that to rule otherwise--to place the TRO in some parts of the country and not others--would cause too much confusion, disorganization and collusion. 

4. In part, President Trump claimed the courts could not review his Order, arguing matters of foreign policy fall solely within the domain of the Executive Branch. The court correctly rejected this, stating  while the court gives great deference to the President involving foreign affairs, such policies are not "unreviewable," especially when they involve substantial Constitutional issues and rights.

5. The court recognized the Constitution guarantees certain due process rights to everyone, including citizens, foreigners and even immigrants in the country illegally. With this in mind, the court found  the Order was broad and vague enough to likely result in substantial Constitutional issues involving multiple classes of people.

6. The court would not rule whether the Order violated the Constitutional prohibition of any law establishing a religion. The court did, however, note 1. evidence of intent (i.e. a President's statements about implementing a "Muslim" ban) behind a law could be used to evaluate whether it violated the Constitution and 2. the States' claims against the Order presented "significant constitutional issues" to be considered at a later time.

7. The court found that while President Trump could not establish evidence that a TRO would result in irreparable harm--failing to show why the country won't simply return the "the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years"--there was enough evidence to establish evidence that taking the TRO away would cause substantial harm to many. 

About the Author

Matt Schmidt

Matt graduated from the James E Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona in passing the Arizona bar exam in 2010. Matt's primary interest in law focuses on general personal injury and insurance bad faith.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Our team works together - for you!

Our award-winning lawyers are backed by a talented, caring team of legal professionals, paralegals, bilingual assistants, notaries, and others - all dedicated to you, your case, and the compensation you deserve.

No fees and no costs until we win.

As such we always have your case and your best interest in mind. When you win, we win too by providing the best legal care possible.

Thorough investigation and preparation.

We tirelessly and thoughtfully prepare every case we represent as though it was going to trial. This lets insurance companies know that we are a force to be reckoned with. As such, we settle successfully 98% of the time.