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

Citing Americans with Disabilities Act, federal judge rules transsexuals must be accommodated
The CDC Is Compromised, Let’s Not Pretend Otherwise
Some people who take Pfizer’s Paxlovid experience a terrible taste in their mouth as a side effect
Texas School District Pulls ‘Explicit’ Books from Library — The Holy Bible Included
Nets Ignore DISTURBING Border Numbers, 10 Suspected Terrorists Crossed Border

Leave a Comment - No Links Allowed:

Your email address will not be published.