Law Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of Trump asylum rule

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by second sight, Sep 10, 2019.

  1. second sight

    second sight Reversing Submissions from Father Time

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    10,503
    Likes Received:
    6,367
    Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger To Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway

    It’s almost like the federal judiciary have no respect for constitutional dictations at all.

    If you recall, Trump won a surprising victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month when they ruled in favor of him implementing new asylum rules that he clearly has the constitutional authority to enact. Those revolved around requiring migrants to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in before proceeding to the United States. This is not only common sense, it’s the world standard and the recommendation of the United Nations (who the left constantly tells us we should listen to). Asylum is not for country shopping. It’s to remove yourself from supposed immediate danger, nothing more.

    Well, the very same judge who was slapped down originally decided to throw up a middle finger at the higher court that overruled him previously. He made the same judgement again, blocking Trump’s asylum policies on a national level.

    This per Axios.

    A California federal judge re-issued a nationwide injunction on Monday, blocking the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who have not first applied for refuge in a “third country” they’ve traveled through.

    Last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed federal Judge Jon Tigar’s first preliminary injunction to apply only to the 9th circuit. The move allowed the Trump administration to enforce the policy — which would all but deny asylum to Central American migrants — in Texas and New Mexico. The policy will now be blocked nationwide once again.

    To recap, this is a single, low level federal judge who’s jurisdiction does not expand past the 9th circuit. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made that clear by narrowing his original ruling and removing the nationwide injunction. What’s he do? Puts it right back in place with no better of an explanation for doing so.

    Judge Tigar is of course an Obama judge, something I’m assured doesn’t exist by Justice John Roberts. This is just more proof of how wrong he is though.

    The judge in question here is ruling completely based on partisan politics. There is no constitutional case for overriding the President’s delegated powers to control immigration policy, nor do non-citizens have a right to claim irreparable harm for him doing so, thereby forcing nationwide injunctions. By that logic, every single part of the constitution could be suspended to prevent some form of irreparable harm to someone on the globe. It’s nonsensical garbage and it’s exactly why nationwide injunctions are terrible policy for the courts. They also have no basis in the delegated powers of the judiciary, seemingly being invented out of nowhere and being in direct contradiction with the Judiciary Act of 1789.

    But as I’ve said many times, this will never stop until Justice Roberts gets some courage and deals with this issue. The Supreme Court needs to take on the question of nationwide injunctions and stop this idiocy. Nowhere in our system of governance was it meant for a single, un-elected judge to dictate policy for the entire country. As long as the highest court sits on its hand though, judges will keep going rogue.

    Hopefully the 9th Circuit slaps this guy down hard again. They can’t be to happy about being so directly defied.

    https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...uling-blocks-trumps-new-asylum-policy-anyway/

    Is there anything that can be done to these judges that keep doing this?
    I agree with the author completely, a un-elected judge should not have the power to dictate policy for the entire country.
     
  2. bobgeese

    bobgeese Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    15,983
    Likes Received:
    22,186
    [​IMG]




    It’s time.
     
  3. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    21,892
    Likes Received:
    55,643
    Here is a link to the actual court decision if you wisely do not take the OP/RedState as a credible source:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.344869/gov.uscourts.cand.344869.73.0.pdf

    You can read the decision itself for information on why the holding and arguments are not the same as the previous one. And the first facts section details how the previous Ninth Court ruling only applied “insofar as the injunction applies within the Ninth Circuit," while the judge believes the scope of this controversy extends outside of it.

    IV. DISCUSSION

    The Court previously found that the Organizations had “established a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm through ‘diversion of resources and the non-speculative loss of substantial funding from other sources.’” East Bay IV, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 957-58 (citing East Bay III, 354 F. Supp. 3d at 1116). The question now before the Court is whether those harms can be addressed by any relief short of a nationwide injunction. The answer is that they cannot.

    A. A Nationwide Injunction Is Necessary to Provide Complete Relief
    The primary reason a nationwide injunction is appropriate is that it is the only means of affording complete relief to the Organizations. As one commentator has observed, the principle that “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs,” Califano, 422 U.S. at 702, “suggests that when a national injunction is needed for complete relief a court should award one,” Samuel L. Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 466 (2017) (emphasis in original). And as the Supreme Court has observed in analogous circumstances, “the scope of injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the violation established, not by the geographical extent of the plaintiff class.” Califano, 442 U.S. at 702. Accordingly, “[the Ninth Circuit has] upheld nationwide injunctions where such breadth was necessary to remedy a plaintiff’s harm.” East Bay V, 2019 WL 3850928, at *2.

    Bresgal v. Brock provides an example. Plaintiffs in that case were the Northwest Forest Workers Association and individual migrant agricultural workers who worked in forestry on a seasonal basis. Bresgal, 843 F.2d at 1165. They sought, and the district court granted, a declaratory judgment that the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act applied to forestry workers and an injunction requiring the Secretary of Labor to enforce the Act in the industry. Id. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the nationwide scope of the injunction, even though it would impact labor contractors who were not parties to the suit, including contractors located outside the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 1171. The court concluded that a nationwide scope was necessary to provide the plaintiffs complete relief because “[m]igrant laborers who are parties to this suit may be involved with contractors whose operations are concentrated elsewhere. Similarly, these plaintiffs, as migrant laborers, may travel to forestry jobs in other parts of the country under the supervision of labor contractors.” Id. See also Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 769 (5th Cir. 2015) (refusing to narrow preliminary injunction of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) to Texas or the plaintiff states due to “a substantial likelihood that a partial injunction would be ineffective because DAPA beneficiaries would be free to move between states”); Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1501-02 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding statewide injunction where 14 named plaintiffs were spread across four counties because “plaintiffs would not receive the complete relief to which they are entitled without statewide application of the injunction”).

    By contrast, a district court abuses its discretion when it grants a geographically broader injunction than is necessary to prevent a plaintiff’s injury. In Azar, for example, five plaintiff states challenged the federal government’s implementation of two interim final rules exempting employers with religious and moral objections from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement. 911 F.3d at 566. The states claimed that enforcement of the rules would cause them economic harm by forcing them to pay for contraceptive care for women whose employers would otherwise cover it. Id. at 571, 581. The record established that enjoining implementation of the rules within the plaintiff states would prevent this harm, but “it was not developed as to the economic impact on other states.” Id. at 584. Because a narrower injunction “would provide complete relief” to the plaintiff states, the court held that the district court abused its discretion by enjoining the rules nationwide. Id. See also City & Cty. of San Francisco, 897 F.3d at 1244 (remanding to the district court for reexamination of the nationwide scope of a permanent injunction where plaintiff counties’ “tendered evidence [wa]s limited to the effect of the [executive order] on their governments and the State of California”).

    The circumstances here are much more like those in Bresgal than those in Azar. Some of the plaintiff Organizations serve clients within and outside of the Ninth Circuit. In addition to representing individuals seeking asylum, three of the organizations serve individuals who are not retained clients by, for example, offering asylum law training for pro bono lawyers and pro se asylum workshops for immigrants. ECF No. 67 at 8-9, 11; ECF No. 3-2 ¶ 7. Under the current bifurcated asylum regime, at least two of the Organizations must expend significant resources determining which of their clients are subject to which regime and adjusting their legal services accordingly, as well as revising centralized resources to reflect the complicated landscape of the limited injunction. A nationwide injunction is thus necessary to provide complete relief from the diversion of resources harms the Court identified in its order granting the first preliminary injunction. East Bay IV, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 957. A discussion of two of the plaintiffs’ circumstances makes this point. Plaintiff Innovation Law Lab (“Law Lab”) is a nonprofit focused on “improv[ing] the legal rights of immigrants and refugees in the United States.” ECF No. 3-4 ¶ 2. Law Lab has offices in California, Oregon, Missouri, Texas, and Georgia. ECF No. 57-2 ¶ 4. Law Lab offers workshops and support to noncitizens and pro bono attorneys in Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Oregon, as well as to legal service providers at immigrant detention centers throughout the country. Id. ¶ 5. Law Lab can offer such a geographically diverse set of services partly thanks to template materials it has developed to assist asylum seekers. Id. ¶ 7. Law Lab also directly represents persons applying for asylum inside and outside the Ninth Circuit. Id. ¶ 5. While many of these clients cross the border in the Ninth Circuit, they “move between jurisdictions throughout the lifetime of their asylum case.” Id. ¶ 16.

    Law Lab will suffer a variety of harms if the third country transit bar goes into effect outside the Ninth Circuit. For example, it will have to redesign its workshops and templates and “devote significant time to re-training . . . volunteers on the new standards and how to screen for attendees who might be subject to the ban.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 9. Its direct representation work will “become significantly more complicated and burdensome.” Id. ¶ 15. Implementation of the Rule outside the Ninth Circuit would also adversely impact Law Lab’s work within the Ninth Circuit by diverting resources to clients who are subject to the Rule. Id. ¶ 17. Because these clients will no longer be eligible for asylum, they will instead have to apply for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), which “have a higher standard of proof than asylum, do not allow for derivative applications, and are more time-consuming cases to handle.” ECF No. 3-4 ¶ 17. As a result, Law Lab would be “forced to serve fewer people overall because of the increased time burden required for a subset of cases.” ECF No. 57-2 ¶ 17.

    Plaintiff Al Otro Lado is a nonprofit whose mission is, in part, “to provide screening, advocacy, and legal representation for individuals in asylum and other immigration proceedings.” ECF No. 3-3 ¶ 4. Al Otro Lado is based in California as well as Tijuana, Mexico. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8. It offers “legal orientation workshops” at its Tijuana office, “providing information about the U.S. asylum system to migrants who wish to seek asylum in the United States.” Id. ¶ 5. Al Otro Lado “recruits and trains volunteers and pro bono attorneys” to assist with these workshops. Id. ¶ 6. A number of Al Otro Lado’s clients end up crossing the border in Texas or New Mexico or later relocate (or are detained) outside the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 57-4 ¶ 5. As a result, “t is impossible for Al Otro Lado to know with certainty ex ante where a given asylum seeker whom [Al Otro Lado] serve prior to their entry will ultimately enter the United States, or where they will end up once they are in the United States, or where a given asylum seeker whom [Al Otro Lado] serve while in detention will end up if released from custody.” Id. ¶ 8. If the injunction is limited to the Ninth Circuit, it will force Al Otro Lado to provide a much broader range of advice to pre-entry asylum seekers to account for different outcomes based on where they choose to enter the country and travel within it. Id. at ¶ 9. This will require the expenditure of “significant organizational resources regarding training materials, staff time, resources, and capacity . . . .” Id.; see also ECF No. 67 at 11.7

    Defendants do not dispute this evidence or engage with the applicable law. Instead, they devote much of their argument to focusing on the lack of harm to identified asylum seekers. See, e.g., ECF No. 65 at 7 (“Yet, despite multiple opportunities, Plaintiffs’ counsel does not identify a single, bona fide client who suffers injury as a result of the rule, or explain how an injunction limited to such aliens would not cure their alleged injuries while this litigation proceeds.”). But this is a strawman – the harm to the Organizations, not their potential clients, was the focus of the Court’s injunction. See East Bay IV, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 957 (“Here, the Organizations have again established a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm through diversion of resources and the nonspeculative loss of substantial funding from other sources.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). And, rather than dispute that harm, Defendants disagree with Ninth Circuit law on organizational standing, see ECF No. 28 at 16 n.1; East Bay IV, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 937, and repeat their contention from earlier phases of this litigation that the organizational harms Plaintiffs allege are speculative, see ECF No. 65 at 23; ECF 28 at 32.8 These issues have already been decided.

    The Organizations have presented sufficient evidence that they will suffer organizational and diversion of resources harms unless the Rule is enjoined outside of, as well as within, the Ninth Circuit.9 A nationwide injunction is thus “necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.” City & Cty. of San Francisco, 897 F.3d at 1244 (quoting Bresgal, 843 F.2d at 1170-71) (internal quotation marks omitted).

    B. Additional Factors Supporting a Nationwide Injunction

    The need to provide complete relief to the Plaintiffs, standing alone, is sufficient reason for the re-issuance of the nationwide injunction. In addition to that factor, however, three other factors support such relief. First, a nationwide injunction is supported by the need to maintain uniform immigration policy. See East Bay II, 932 F.3d at 779 (collecting cases and stating that “n immigration matters, we have consistently recognized the authority of district courts to enjoin unlawful policies on a universal basis”); Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 908 F.3d at 511 (affirming nationwide injunction against the government’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program based in part on “the need for uniformity in immigration policy”). While this factor may not, by itself, support the issuance of a nationwide injunction, it weighs in its favor. Second, nationwide relief is supported by the text of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires the “reviewing court,” “[t]o the extent necessary and when presented,” to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 706. The Ninth Circuit has cited this language in upholding a nationwide injunction of regulations that conflicted with the governing statute. Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687, 699 (9th Cir. 2007), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009); see also Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 908 F.3d at 511 (“In [the APA] context, ‘[w]hen a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated – not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.’”) (quoting Nat’l Min. Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). 10

    Lastly, anything but a nationwide injunction will create major administrability issues. Although the Government’s recently-issued guidance with regard to the Rule is intended to allow the Court’s injunction to be applied within the Ninth Circuit, problems in administration would remain. For one thing, ambiguities within the guidance documents will lead to uneven enforcement. See ECF No. 67 at 12 (comparing the Government’s description of the injunction as covering those “whose adjudications and proceedings occur in the Ninth [C]ircuit” to the EOIR Guidance’s instruction that the Rule does not apply to those whose “interview or adjudication” occurs in the Ninth Circuit). For another, it is not clear what effect the guidance will have on an asylum applicant who transits between circuits. For example, an applicant who crosses the border and has a credible fear interview outside the Ninth Circuit would, in the absence of a nationwide injunction, be subject to the Rule and thus (barring an exception) eligible only for withholding of removal or CAT. Id. If that individual’s removal proceedings were later moved to the Ninth Circuit, it is unclear whether the immigration judge would be bound by the original denial of credible fear or, since the Rule is enjoined within the Ninth Circuit, able to allow the individual to apply for asylum.

    CONCLUSION

    While nationwide injunctions are not the “general rule,” they are appropriate “where such breadth [is] necessary to remedy a plaintiff’s harm.” East Bay V, 2019 WL 3850928, at *2. This is such a case. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court grants the Organizations’ motion to restore the nationwide scope of the injunction.
     
  4. andnowweknow

    andnowweknow The Giant On Whose Shoulders You Stand Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    12,387
    Likes Received:
    9,290
    So no "fuck you" was issue by a libtard judge who hates America?
     
  5. JamesRussler

    JamesRussler You can call me Jimmy

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    12,771
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Appeal the case again, and this time request that the judge be reassigned on remand. Federal judges are pretty much insulated from real consequences for their actions though.
     
  6. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    21,892
    Likes Received:
    55,643
    Not quite.

    But who knows. Maybe this Obama lackey will go on Twitter to call Trump a total loser with a low-IQ. After all, we know that both sides are equally petty, partisan, and irrational.
     
    ElKarlo and 7437 like this.
  7. Sketch

    Sketch ?.?.?.?.?.?

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Likes Received:
    26,345
    Location:
    .....
    Sounds like treason.
     
    uppercutbus, glenwo2 and Brodels like this.
  8. trident

    trident Water Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Messages:
    14,518
    Likes Received:
    23,435
    Location:
    beneath a hovering whining mosquito
    Fuckin spoilers people fot all this text and what's up with the third grade sized font?
     
    kenetics and hansolo like this.
  9. Liquid Smoke

    Liquid Smoke Great artists steal™

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,717
    Likes Received:
    17,690
    Quoted because (unfortunately) this still needs to be said.
     
  10. hillelslovak87

    hillelslovak87 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Messages:
    23,978
    Likes Received:
    34,797
    Location:
    ..............
    Yes, if you're retarded and can't read more than 2 sentences without lapsing into a catatonic state.
     
    Strychnine and 7437 like this.
  11. 7437

    7437 Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    22,550
    Likes Received:
    18,352
    That seems like a likely outcome.
     
  12. second sight

    second sight Reversing Submissions from Father Time

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    10,503
    Likes Received:
    6,367
    Just a copy and paste
     
  13. Dirt Road Soldier

    Dirt Road Soldier All Praise To The Gun!

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,460
    Likes Received:
    6,063
    Location:
    Minnesota
    He's gonna get his ruling slapped down same as before. He's gotta be smoking the good stuff if he thinks there will be any other outcome.
     
  14. Whippy McGee

    Whippy McGee Meme Master

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2014
    Messages:
    8,424
    Likes Received:
    36,856
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, CA
    This is clearly a Federal Judge looking for an angle and line stepping. He's going to get slapped.
     
  15. second sight

    second sight Reversing Submissions from Father Time

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    10,503
    Likes Received:
    6,367
    time for what?
     
  16. hillelslovak87

    hillelslovak87 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Messages:
    23,978
    Likes Received:
    34,797
    Location:
    ..............
    Did any of you guys read Trotsky's post? It clears this tyrannical overreach up pretty well.....
     
  17. Happy Man

    Happy Man Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2017
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    14,023
    Can this nonsense happen indefinitely?

    That can’t be the intended way for courts to work. Can this judge be removed if he keeps throwing his nonsensical liberalism everywhere?
     
    uppercutbus and HockeyBjj like this.
  18. Beastman09

    Beastman09 He kneeled. We fight.

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    625
    Fact check:

    A little background knowledge:
    1. The case in the lower Court, nor the subsequent appeal are considered an adjudication on the facts, or merits. The lower court granted an injunction that applies NATIONWIDE; Trump & Co then asked the 9th Circuit for a STAY PENDING APPEAL. Essentially Trump is asking that the injunction be "put on hold" until the case in the lower court is adjudicated.

    2. When an appellant seeks a stay pending panel, the higher Court is only concerned about whether the injunction is justified and supported by the record of the lower court.

    3. The Judge didn't(and cannot) re-instante the injunction sua-sponte. The Plaintiff's in the lower court filed a motion requesting as such.

    =======================================================

    Key statements from the 9th circuit:



    To summarize, the 9th circuit granted the stay, due to the fact that the district court did not explain its rationale and why a nationwide injunction is necessary. Once the case was back in the lower court, Plaintiff's filed a motion to reinstate the injunction, and the lower court did exactly as the 9th circuit instructed(further developed the record, and explained the rationale for supporting a nationwide band).

    Despite the way you guys interpret it, the legal issue at hand isn't political, it's simply the question of does a lower court retain jurisdiction over the issues that are being appealed. Trump's DOJ argued that the lower court did not have jurisdiction since the issues in question had been appealed and a partial stay had been granted, and thus the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's motion to reinstate the injunction.

    The 9th Circuit order explicitly stated that the lower court did retain jurisdiction.



    Sources:
    Tigar's Order restoring ban: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/09/09/order.pdf
    9th Circuit Opinion:https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/9th-circuit-stay.pdf
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
    panamaican, Fawlty and Swing like this.
  19. K1levelgrappler

    K1levelgrappler Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    13,132
    Grandpa bringing the large print posting
     
    Happy Man and 7437 like this.
  20. Headkicktoleg

    Headkicktoleg Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    31,564
    Likes Received:
    69,925
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    It still blows my mind that dems support ILLEGAL immigration.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.