Rea­son­ing not bizarre

Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - - VOICES -

Bradley Gitz won­dered “what bizarre le­gal rea­son­ing” the U.S. Ap­pel­late Court used in its Wash­ing­ton v. Trump de­ci­sion. Since he ap­par­ently had not read the de­ci­sion, I of­fer some quotes.

Trump, the court wrote, had taken the po­si­tion that “the pres­i­dent’s de­ci­sions about im­mi­gra­tion pol­icy, par­tic­u­larly when mo­ti­vated by na­tional se­cu­rity con­cerns, are un­re­view­able [by the courts] … There is no prece­dent to sup­port this[.]”

Mr. Gitz used quo­ta­tion marks around “rights” of il­le­gal aliens, but the pro­ce­dural pro­tec­tions pro­vided by the Con­sti­tu­tion are not lim­ited to cit­i­zens. Rather, said the court, “they ‘appl[y] to all per­sons within the United States, in­clud­ing aliens,’ re­gard­less of ‘whether their pres­ence here is law­ful, un­law­ful, tem­po­rary, or per­ma­nent’.” Trump lost be­cause he ar­gued that “most or all of the in­di­vid­u­als af­fected by the ex­ec­u­tive or­der have no rights un­der the Due Process Clause.”

“The states,” the court wrote, “ar­gue that the ex­ec­u­tive or­der vi­o­lates the Es­tab­lish­ment [of re­li­gion] and Equal Pro­tec­tion Clauses be­cause it was in­tended to dis­fa­vor Mus­lims. In sup­port of this ar­gu­ment, the states have of­fered ev­i­dence of nu­mer­ous state­ments by the pres­i­dent about his in­tent to im­ple­ment a ‘Mus­lim ban’ as well as ev­i­dence they claim sug­gests that the ex­ec­u­tive or­der was in­tended to be that ban[.] … De­spite the district court’s and our own re­peated in­vi­ta­tions to ex­plain the ur­gent need for the ex­ec­u­tive or­der to be placed im­me­di­ately into ef­fect, the govern­ment sub­mit­ted no ev­i­dence.”

In short, the court’s le­gal rea­sons were not bizarre.


Siloam Springs

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.