Legal Speaks Home Debbie Hines Bio Blog TV Clips Practice Areas Res Ipsa Loquitur Links Contact
Blog Home

Posts Tagged ‘federal court’

Trump Travel Ban 2.0 is Dead on Arrival

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

UnionRallyGroupOn Monday, March 6, Donald Trump signed another executive travel ban.  Instead of pursuing a likely dead end in lengthy litigation on the first ban which affected seven primarily Muslim countries— and also banned those person holding visas and green cards, the Trump Administration decided to start anew.  The second round ban exempted Iraq—still including the same six other Muslim countries. It further made provisions for those with Green cards and visas to be exempted.   However, not much else changed in the real sense of showing a need for a travel ban to Muslim countries.

 

And before the ban took effect, it was shut down by federal courts in Hawaii and Maryland.  Nothing had really changed from the first ban. The first one was shut down in federal court in the State of Washington placing a hold on the ban.  One day after announcing the new travel ban, Hawaii wasted no time at all in filing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii—much like the earlier one filed in the State of Washington last month.

 

 

I give the Trump Administration an “A” on persistence and a “F” on execution.  The most recent travel ban met the similar fate as the first one for the very same reasons.  The earlier ban met its fate as the Trump administration and Justice Department failed to articulate any real security concerns for a travel ban to seven Muslim countries.

 

Removing Iraq from the list was done at the request of apparently the State Department due to its Iraqi translators.   And the travel ban’s exemption of Green cards and visas still does not address if there is any real security reason or threat for a Muslim country travel ban.  The Administration failed to be able to effectively address those security concerns last month.  And courts work on evidence and not campaign promises.

 

These federal courts wasted no time in showing the Trump administration how the three branches of government work.  Both courts recognized the ban was solely against Muslims and therefore violated our constitution.  The judiciary branch shut down the ban as unconstitutional.  And the executive branch of government, a la Mr. Trump, has no alternative but to either further appeal its case in court or attempt yet another travel ban.

 

Mr. Trump is learning a lesson that many litigants learn once in court.  One’s prior words can be used against you in both civil and criminal court. And Mr. Trump’s prior tweets, speeches and words on needing a ban to expel Muslims from our country and prevent Muslims from entering was the reason for the ban.  In one press release issued during the campaign, Trump called for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims.  His own words caused his defeat. There is no national need for security concerns.

 

An unlawful travel ban by any other words is still unlawful.   Mr. Trump’s actions are unconstitutional, against the first amendment on freedom of religion and quite frankly, un- American.  If he wants to make America great again, which many persons seriously doubt, he can start by upholding the US Constitutional in his executive orders.

Freedom of religion is what democracy  and America looks like.  Mr. Trump has yet to learn this civics lesson.

 

DebbieFox5DC2017Washington, DC based Debbie Hines is a trial lawyer, member of the Supreme Court bar, legal analyst and former Baltimore prosecutor.  She is often seen in the media addressing legal  and political issues.

Appeals Court Trumps Mr. Trump on his Travel Ban

Friday, February 10th, 2017

supcourt_buildingOn Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mr. Trump and the Government’s request to lift the travel ban stay, pending an appeal. In upholding the lower court’s decision, which ended the ban, the federal appeals court gave an elementary school civics lesson to the President and the Department of Justice lawyers arguing the case.

 

The Department of Justice lawyers argued that the judiciary branch of the government had no authority to end the executive order.   It argued as if the President has full authority over the courts, our judicial branch of government.  The appellate court made it clear that there was no precedent for that part of the Government’s argument–ever, even if based on national security.  The appeals court gave Mr.  Trump a nice civics lesson. There are three branches of government under the U. S. Constitution—executive, judiciary and legislative. No one branch of government is superior to the other.  For Mr. Trump to misunderstand the checks and balances of democracy is appalling.

 

 

 

The court further found there was no evidence or facts that even supported the Government’s claim of a security need based on terrorism—or bad things happening as Mr. Trump asserts.   The Trump lawyers failed to provide any evidence or facts that would support the alleged need for the travel ban to the seven countries of primarily Muslim background.  The Government failed to show any of the seven countries were involved in any terrorist attacks on the U. S.  There was no irreparable harm shown to exist if the travel ban were lifted. The law, as Mr. Trump found today, is based on evidence and facts. It’s not what you say or tweet out to the public. It’s what you can prove in a court of law.  The Government was all talk but no substance.

 

The State of Washington, on the other hand,  through hard evidence and facts showed the harm committed by the travel ban as it affected its  public universities, including faculty and students, research abroad,  reducing its tax base and restricting travel to and from the U.S., leaving persons stranded without any recourse.

 

And the other civics or constitutional law lesson given to Mr. Trump is that any taking of life, liberty and property must be afforded due process under the U.S. Constitution. This means the government cannot take away rights unilaterally without due process, a hearing, means for redress and an appeal process.  The travel ban went into effect immediately—depriving persons of the right to travel from those seven countries to the U.S. without affording them any rights of due process to redress it.  The right to due process applies regardless of whether the persons affected are citizens or non-citizens.  While some of Mr. Trump’s supporters may complain, they too should read the U.S. Constitution.

 

The 9th Circuit decided the sole issue of whether to lift the stay and place the travel ban back in effect pending the appeal. In making its decision, it stated the Trump administration was not likely to win the issue on appeal.  The three judges on the panel that decided the case were appointed by Presidents Carter, Bush and Obama.

 

 

For now, the travel restrictions against the seven countries remain lifted.  According to the President’s early evening tweet following the latest court action, Mr. Trump spoke to his base with bald allegations and no substance to back up his national security needs as the reason for the ban.  It would do the President good if he were to pick up a copy and read the entire U.S. constitution—thereby saving taxpayers’ money on frivolous appeals and other legal actions.  In the words of singer James Brown, he needs to stop “talking loud and saying nothing.”

To read the entire court opinion, click here

Washington, DC based Debbie Hines is a lawyer, legal analyst and member of the Supreme Court.