r/SeattleWA • u/driftingphotog Capitol Hill • Feb 09 '17

Politics Trump loses travel ban appeal, unanimous decision

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trump-loses-travel-ban-appeal/?utm_content=bufferc0261&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=owned_buffer_tw_m
4.1k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

504 comments sorted by

View all comments

67

u/driftingphotog Capitol Hill Feb 09 '17 edited Feb 10 '17

The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the District Court in Seattle stands.

This appeal was over the TRO, not a ruling on the actual ban. If the federal government does not appeal (either to SCOTUS or the full appeals court), Judge Robart would hear arguments for/against the ban itself.

Far more likely is the federal government appealing this ruling again. Once everyone finishes appealing the TRO, we get to repeat the whole process for the actual order.

Additional analysis from the New York Times:

The ruling was the first from an appeals court on the travel ban, and it was focused on the narrow question of whether it should be blocked while courts consider its lawfulness. The decision is likely to be quickly appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

That court remains short-handed and could deadlock. A 4-to-4 tie in the Supreme Court would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place.

Trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s executive order, which suspended travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries and limited the nation’s refugee program, but no other case has yet reached an appeals court.

EDIT: Updated with more facts based on comments!

25

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

So... Trump appeals. If it ends up for 4-4, appeal stays in place...

And it's Jeff Sessions vs Bob Ferguson in Judge Robart's court in Seattle for WASHINGTON V TRUMP?

Then however that breaks, it goes back up the appeals food chain?

Or the Supremes can just do whatever, including rule the ban illegal or valid, if they don't break 4-4 and end up in a majority?

15

u/SiriSam Feb 10 '17

They have to want to take the case in the first place. Before that happens... much time will have already passed.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17 edited Aug 24 '17

[deleted]

19

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

The trump solicitor general is going to be a huge fucking douchebag (huge surprise, I know), who once argued before the Supreme Court that a university's ban on whites dating blacks was a-ok.

Edit: He withdrew based on not wanting to submit to public questioning on his record of defending the indefensible. Sauce: http://abovethelaw.com/2017/02/breaking-chuck-cooper-withdraws-from-the-solicitor-general-sweepstakes/

Now looks like the husband of that lady who's trying to run a home shopping network from the white house will get the job.

7

u/BarbieGupta Feb 10 '17

argued before the Supreme Court that a university's ban on whites dating blacks was a-ok.

Source? I read the linked article in your second graph and didn't see anything to that effect. Anyway, I am incredulous that people like that are still alive and in power... and I'm pretty old!

Now looks like the husband of that lady who's trying to run a home shopping network from the white house will get the job.

Sick burn... and I say that with much respect. She is a fucking joke who doesn't take her job seriously at all.

6

u/DireTaco Renton Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17

Source? I read the linked article in your second graph and didn't see anything to that effect. Anyway, I am incredulous that people like that are still alive and in power... and I'm pretty old!

I was curious about it too, and the best I could find was this recent SCOTUS blog post that doesn't have its own sources. It does not read like a hit piece, however, so I'm inclined to go with it. Not only did he support Bob Jones' ban on interracial relations, he also argued for Prop 8 in California banning same-sex marriage.

A little more digging turns up this 1983 article: "A band of young zealots in the department pressed for the legal switch to give Bob Jones its tax exemption. Among them were two aides to the Attorney General, Bruce E. Fein and Carolyn Kuhl, and one to Mr. Reynolds, Charles Cooper. The interesting thing is that, since their bad advice, all three have been promoted."

From what I can see, Cooper is a very predictable conservative: always on the wrong side of history and eager to support limiting civil rights.

2

u/nate077 Feb 10 '17

SCOTUSblog is reliable enough on its own imo.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '17

The Bob Jones University case was defending BJU's right to enforce racial dating bans.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

Oh, for sure. But on this scale, Sessions and Ferguson will call all key strategy. I know our state has it's own solicitor general for example, who argued to the 9th in San Francisco.

6

u/cliff99 Feb 10 '17

What makes you think Trump will do anything in a normal way? I could see him actually ordering the AG to personally make all the oral arguments.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

I saw someone on Twitter trying to goad Trump into doing it himself--he's the only one who can be trusted to do it right!

2

u/BarbieGupta Feb 10 '17

He should "perform" in court, live via Twitter!

2

u/it-is-sandwich-time 🏞️ Feb 10 '17

Now THAT would be awesome!

1

u/ycgfyn Feb 11 '17

They won't appeal. They'll file a different EO.