This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—May 25

POLITICS & POLICY
Protest signs outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., April 25, 2018. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

2017—By a vote of 10 to 3, the en banc Fourth Circuit affirms a district court’s nationwide injunction on President Trump’s executive order that temporarily bars immigration from six majority-Muslim countries. That order spells out that each of the six countries “is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones.” But Chief Judge Gregory, author of the majority opinion, looks to campaign statements by candidate Trump to dismiss the order’s stated reasons as “a pretext for what really is an anti-Muslim religious purpose.”

In dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer (joined by Judges Shedd and Agee) faults the majority for violating the Supreme Court’s precedent in Kleindienst v. Agee (1972), “which held that courts are precluded from ‘look[ing] behind’ ‘facially legitimate and bona fide’ exercises of executive discretion in the immigration context to discern other possible purposes.”

You Might Like

(In October 2017, the Supreme Court will vacate the Fourth Circuit’s judgment on the ground that the expiration of the relevant provision of the executive order meant that there was no longer a “live case or controversy.”)

Articles You May Like

California water regulators cut off water supplies to select farmers and ranchers as WATER RATIONING accelerates
GOP lawmakers criticize new CDC mask guidance, Biden says federal employee vaccine mandate ‘under consideration’
WATCH: Tens of thousands participate in worldwide anti-vaccine passport protests, violent clashes erupt
NYC to Mandate Vaccines or Weekly COVID Tests for All City Workers
Piers Morgan: If you refuse COVID-19 vaccine and catch the virus, you should be denied state-funded health care and pay for it yourself

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *