My Cart

Close

GO. FIGHT. WIN.

Travel Ban 3.0 the day SCOTUS got it Wrong

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on June 26 2018

 

Executive Order (EO) Jan 2017

You can read the text of Trump’s January 2017 EO- 13780 via this White House link, found here

EO-13780 

Had two mandates & main courses of action to assure that the United States remain:

“vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved foradmission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.” 

 

Section 3 of EO-13780 states:

President invoked his authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend for 90 days immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of nationals from seven majority-Muslim countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

Section 5 of EO-13780  particularity of Refugees:

immediately suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (“USRAP”) for 120 days, imposed a ban of indefinite duration on the entry of refugees from Syria, and limited the entry of refugees to 50,000 in fiscal year 2017.

Additional changes to the Refugee program & criteria:

 “to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”

 

June 2017:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (9thCCOAS) rendered their ruling and opinion regarding Donald Trump’s Muslim/Travel Bans. The distinction and questions posed to the 9thCCOAs was asked to:

...delineate the statutory and constitutional limits to the President’s power to control immigration in this appeal of the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining two sections of Executive Order 13780 (“EO2” or “the Order”),

 

Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States of America 

🚩Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) gives the President broad powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to protect the American public.

But immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show.

The President’s authority is subject to certain statutory and constitutional restraints.

We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress.
 

 

The 9thCCOAs concluded that the District Court err by:

enjoining the entirety of Sections 2 and 6, particularly the portions that pertain to interagency review, despite the Government’s requests for clarification and requests to narrow the injunction to enjoin conduct that actually harms Plaintiffs.

The district court abused its discretion in enjoining inward-facing agency conduct because enjoining this conduct would not remedy the harms asserted by Plaintiffs.

And ultimately affirmed, reverse and remanded back to the District Court with Instructions. You can read the full 9thCCOAs ruling here

 

 

October 2017

Federal District Court Judge Derrick Watson said Donald Trump’s Muslim ban, not a ban, a travel ban...that Trump's third version: 

 

"plainly discriminates based on nationality."

 

Specifically using strong language on Trump’s “water-down” 3.0 Ban:

...suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor: it lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States,'" 

 

Judge Watson further stated the growing & reasonable concerns that Donald Trump and his Administration simply act as though they are above the Rule of Law and our Constitution:

 

“Professional athletes mirror the federal government in this respect: they operate within a set of rules, and when one among them forsakes those rules in favor of his own, problems ensue. And so it goes with EO-3," 

Like its predecessor," he said, the revised order makes no finding that "nationality alone" would make a broad class of individuals a heightened security risk. He also questioned why "existing law" would be "insufficient to address the President's described concerns."

 

 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 368) is GRANTED. You can read the October 2017 ruling & memo, here.

 

To wit the Trump Administration via its attack dog, Sarah Sanders issued this scathing and unhinged response 

Calling the ruling "dangerously flawed."
"The entry restrictions in the proclamation apply to countries based on their inability or unwillingness to share critical information necessary to safely vet applications, as well as a threat assessment related to terrorism, instability, and other grave national security concerns," 

 

January 2018 DHS - OIG Report:

In a 112 scathing report, the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General concluded that DHS (and subordinate agencies) violated no less than 2 Federal Court Orders. You can read the whole DHS-OIG Report, link found here.

  ..” we observed that the lack of a public or congressional relations strategy significantly hampered CBP and harmed its public image. While the media reported instances of misconduct, we did not substantiate any claims of misconduct on the part of CBP Officers (CBPOs) at the ports of entry.

Regarding the Department’s compliance with multiple federal court orders that were issued between the January 27, 2017 release of the EO and the February 3, 2017 nation-wide injunction in Washington v. Trump, we found that at the ports of entry, CBP largely complied with court orders, albeit with some delay and confusion as to the scope of some orders.

CBP was aggressive in preventing affected travelers from boarding aircraft bound for the United States. We believe those actions violated two separate court orders that enjoined CBP from this activity.

 

  

 

SCOTUS IGNORED

TRUMP CALLING

IMMIGRANTS ANIMALS 

IMMIGRANTS = Criminals & Killers

🚨

🚩Donald J. Trump et al. v Hawaii, et al.

🚩Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)

🚩Pace v. Alabama (1893)

in which SCOTUS was wrong, link found here

Scotus punted on the constitutionality or the validation of Southern State like Alabama anti-miscegenation laws, making inter-racial marriage illegal or the co-habitation of inter-racial couples 

 Tony Pace, a black man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, challenged the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional because it was “race-neutral” and therefore did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

punishment provided for the offense for which the plaintiff in error was indicted when committed by a person of the African race and when committed by a white person. The two sections of the Code cited are entirely consistent.

There is in neither section any discrimination against either race. Section 4184 equally includes the offense when the persons of the two sexes are both white and when they are both black. Section 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, the white and the black. Indeed, the offense against which this latter section is aimed cannot be committed without involving the persons of both races in the same punishment. Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.

🚨It took 80 YEARS for SCOTUS to fix their mistake🚨

Loving v Virginia (1967) 

80 YEARs our Supreme Court to FIX this racial injustice via Loving v Virginia (1967) which was a LANDMARK ruling, found here.

 

🚩Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

In which SCOTUS was wrong, like shamefully wrong, link found here.

the question before the Court:

Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment? 

The Ruling:

The ruling would stand until overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and its descendant Jim Crow would remain the de facto law of the South until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plessy was a bi-racial man who refused to move from a “blacks-only” railway car in Louisiana. The Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s Separate Car Act did not contradict the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court declared that the Constitution guaranteed legal but not social equality. Although the opinion itself does not contain the language “separate but equal," legal segregation was the de facto effect.

 

🚩Korematsu v USA (1944)

in which SCOTUS was wrong, link found here.  This is and continues to be a horrible stain on our Country’s history where our Government created internment Camps for Japanese Americans, many of whom were actual Citizens.

The question before the Court:

Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent? 

The Ruling:

In an opinion written by Justice Black, the Court ruled that the evacuation order violated by Korematsu was valid. The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from invasion. The Court relied heavily on a 1941 decision, Hirabayashi v. U.S., which addressed similar issues. Black argued that the validation of the military's decision by Congress merited even more deference. 

  

🚩Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

in which SCOTUS was wrong. Link to Case found here.

The Question before the Court:

Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?

The Ruling:

No. The divided Court found that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices. Justice Byron White argued that the Court has acted to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution only when those rights are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Palko v. Connecticut, 1937) or when they are "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). The Court held that the right to commit sodomy did not meet either of these standards. White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road of illegitimacy.

 

While you're here, throw us a bone.

Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.

Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.

DONATE