Ninth Circuit, Asserting Its Role, Keeps Nationwide Block on Travel Ban in Place

, The Recorder


If there's a way to respond to a president who has taken aim at the federal judiciary, it's to speak with one voice. That's just what the Ninth Circuit did on Thursday with its per curiam opinion that struck back at the notion that a president's actions are unreviewable.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • eric d. meyer

    The 9th Circuit ruling did nothing other than maintain the status quo prior to Trump‘s unconstitutional assertion of sovereign executive authority to dictate national policy from the White House (to "legislate from the Oval Office"), without consulting the US Congress or US courts. The only issue before the Court in reviewing the TRO was whether the State of Washington would suffer irreparable harm (not to say: revenues) from having, for example, U-Wash students and Microsoft employees, excluded from the State (it would); or whether the government would suffer irreparable injury from having its overweening executive authority temporarily suspended while the courts decide the case (it wouldn‘t). This is an exemplary ruling, and I‘ll bet it survives appeal, whether en banc or SCOTUS . The great danger is that Trump and Co. will flout the constitutional authority of the Court to review executive orders or issue injunctions, thereby attacking the basic US Const. principles of checks and balances and separation of powers, and provoking an enormous constitutional crisis. Not to mention raising the threat of a Trumpist coup d‘etat and White House dictatorship: precisely the dangers the US. Const. was created to prevent...

  • Shame!

    Belgium, Germany, France. - Our current vetting system allowed Tashfeen Malik from the San Bernadino Shooting into America. What more needs to be said? This is one order from this President this country should be on board with. The Ninth Circuit is more concerned about skirting around the law for a political agenda then the lives and safety of American‘s How sad that is!

  • Hshmr

    As unsurprising as this ruling is, it is still depressing how confused the panel seems to be about basic issues reviewable on appeal from a TRO. Standing, burden of proof, standard for showing the likelihood of success, standard of evidence for irreprerable harm... Not to mention the Court‘s misguided advisory opinions on constitutional issues, particularly the Fifth Amendment. If the 9th Circuit wanted to assert judicial authority to check the power of the President, it should have done it with a proper legal opinion, not a pre-prepared political manifesto.

  • Jeffrey Spangler

    So what‘s next? A petition for en banc rehearing or an emergency motion for a stay to the Supremes? I‘d bet (if I were a betting man) on en banc review, which will likely add to the number of judges who have smacked down the President.

  • tbl5142

    Did anyone truly expect anything different from the Ninth Circus? I‘m sure it will ride up to SCOTUS.

  • Observer

    Of course, while Obama was President, the ultra-conservatives commenting here were all for judicial checks to protect the Constitution against overreaching executive action.

  • SGB

    I am just overwhelmed by the stupidity of the Liberal Activist Judges. The Republican President may have appointed that old fart on this Appellate court but he is nothing but a legislate from the bench Left Wing Nut.

  • Cliff J.

    Here is another demonstration,(as if any more were needed) of the reason the 9th Circus is the most reversed appellate court in the United States. Constitution? We don‘t need no stinkin Constitution! Legal reasoning? We don‘t need no stinkin legal reasoning! All we need is a Left Wing agenda !

  • DGR

    I am not an attorney but I do think logically and I fail to find even the thinnest thread of standing for the states to ask for injunction. I cannot fathom any irreparable harm to the State and especially to their citizens.

  • Jim T

    It is disturbing about the name calling but the America people are so tired of this kind of judicial activism that it accounts for somebody like Trump being elected. This is one of those cases where the questions asked were inappropriate. If these judges want to now set the policy please come up with a plan to keep us all safe. Because if anyone is killed the blood is and should be on the hands of the three that voted for this. The statute in this case is about as clear in granting authority to the executive branch as any out there for a reason. The 9th circus comes thru again.

  • DCL

    It is disturbing that someone (in the comment section) believes it‘s appropriate in discussions of a ruling involving serious matters such as national security, immigration and compliance with the Constitution to call the judges "stupid," especially when she most likely has not read the actual opinion issued by the court.

  • 9th Circuit dictating national security policy? Hold on partner, this is about to get a little rough.


  • Chris Marengo

    Con Law interpreted by radicals. Completely made up b.s. Insane.

  • Katherine

    No surprise here. Standing? Whatever. Ample evidence? Really? Where and what? Stellar analysis on "the other parties interested in the proceeding." You mean the ones that have no standing? These judges are stupid because they cannot put aside their politics. They have TDR, no doubt. Successful forum shopping!

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202778885613

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.