Appeals Court Rules Against Trump's Withholding of Federal Funds For Sanctuary Cities

Donald Trump

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled Donald Trump's executive order to withhold funds from so-called 'sanctuary cities' to be unconstitutional.

The ruling notes that federal funds can only be withheld by Congressional authorization.

Via Politico:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that federal funding could be withheld only with congressional authorization. The appeals court also noted that the U.S. District Court went too far by blocking the policy nationwide, and sent back the case for “reconsideration and further findings.”

“We conclude that, under the principle of Separation of Powers and in consideration of the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants, the Executive Branch may not refuse to disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization,” a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit said in its 2-to-1 ruling.

Trump signed an executive order in January 2017 that dealt with interior immigration enforcement. The 9th Circuit on Wednesday ruled against a provision that limited funding to jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement — also known as sanctuary cities.

The executive order focused on a federal statute that prohibits federal, state and local officials from restricting the sharing of information related to an individual’s immigration or citizenship status. While the appeals court didn’t rule on that statute, U.S.C. 1373, a Chicago-based federal judge in late July found it unconstitutional in separate lawsuit over withholding of federal grants over immigration enforcement. That ruling was limited to the city of Chicago, the plaintiff in the case.

The Justice Department issued a statement Wednesday condemning the ruling as a "victory for criminal aliens in California" and said the department will continue to be committed to "keeping criminal aliens off the streets."

9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the 4th Circuit Court that President Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional.

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel basically affirmed a March decision by Judge Derrick K. Watson, of the Federal District Court in Hawaii.

From the New York Times:

Like the Fourth Circuit, Judge Watson blocked major parts of the revised order on the ground that they violated the Constitution’s ban on a government establishment of religion. Judge Watson wrote that the statements of Mr. Trump and his advisers made clear that his executive order amounted to an attempt to disfavor Muslims.

“A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion,” Judge Watson wrote.

The 9th Circuit Court determined that President Trump exceeded the scope of his authority, writing in part, “The Immigration and Nationality Act ... 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.”

Additionally, the panel of judges cite Donald Trump's travel ban tweet, and White House spokesman Sean Spicer's answer that Trump's tweets are official statements. Yet another reason the Trumpster should pause before tweeting.

That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

The ban now heads to the U.S. Supreme Court.

9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Against Trump Administration On Immigration Policy

Bad news as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against the Trump administration's immigration policy.

From the Washington Post:

A federal appeals court has maintained the freeze on President Trump’s controversial immigration order, meaning previously barred refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries can continue entering the U.S.

A panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ruling of U.S. District Judge James Robart, who had decided Friday that Trump’s temporary travel ban should be put on hold. The Department of Homeland Security soon suspended all enforcement of Trump’s controversial directive.

The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, could now ask the Supreme Court — which often defers to the president on matters of immigration and national security — to intervene. The Supreme Court, though, remains one justice short, and many see it as ideologically split 4-4. A tie would keep in place whatever the appeals court decides.

Judge Michelle Taryn Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked a Justice Department lawyer if the government had “pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism.”

Judge Richard Clifton, a President George W. Bush appointee, noted that the government already had processes in place to screen people coming from those countries and asked, “Is there any reason for us to think that there’s a real risk or that circumstances have changed such that there’s a real risk?”

While most expect Trump to head to the Supreme Court (his ego couldn't handled anything less), lots of legal experts say Trump should take the time to rewrite the policy in a way that passes legal muster.

I should add that the ban was intended to be temporary - only 90 and 120 days. So, while this takes time to be worked out, I'm assuming Team Trump is still going about the business of evaluating immigration processes, yes? If the point was to hit 'pause' temporarily to figure out how to vet immigrants more precisely, then that work should still be going on.

UPDATE - Trump took little time rushing to Twitter:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Denies Trump Stay On Immigration Ruling

(image via Instagram)

Does this mean the 9th Circuit  is now a "so-called" appeals court?

Instead of staying U.S. Federal Judge Robart's temporary restraining order on Trump's immigration EO, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested arguments from both sides by Monday to fully consider the motion.

From the New York Times:

A federal appeals court early Sunday rejected a request by the Justice Department to immediately restore President Trump’s targeted travel ban, deepening a legal showdown over his authority to tighten the nation’s borders in the name of protecting Americans from terrorism.

In the legal back and forth over the travel ban, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said a reply from the Trump administration was now due on Monday.

The ruling meant that refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — who were barred by an executive order signed by the president on Jan. 27 would, for now, continue to be able to enter the country.

President Bannon Trump won't be pleased.

Justice Department Files Appeal To 9th Circuit Court Regarding Trump Immigration Policy

The Department of Justice has filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift a temporary restraining order by U.S. Federal Judge James Robart concerning President Trump's executive order on immigration policy.

The EO, issued a week ago, banned travel to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending refugee entry to the US. The Washington state Attorney General filed suit in his state saying the travel ban was unconstitutional. Judge Robart, a Bush appointee, agreed.

Considering how quickly the Trump administration has been moving, I'm surprised it took almost 24 hours to file the appeal.

The Department of Homeland Security announced it had suspended all actions to implement the immigration order and would resume standard inspections of travelers as it did prior to the signing of the travel ban.

Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

Why aren't the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

News Round-Up: September 1, 2016

Some news stories you may have missed:

• The first episode of woofy web series WHERE THE BEARS ARE Season 5 is here - watch below!

• Logo's "Finding Prince Charming" star under fire for his past work as a male escort.

• New study delivers promising results for new Alzheimers treatment.

• Guess who's hitting the dance floor for the next season of DANCING WITH THE STARS?

• Moulin Rouge The Musical heading to a Broadway stage in the near future.

• 9th Circuit Court of Appeals tells medicinal marijuana card holders: "No guns for you!"

First Same-Sex Marriages Take Place In Guam

Last week, a federal judge in Guam ruled that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on same-sex marriage applied to the U.S. Territory making marriage equality the law of land in the U.S. Territory.

Today, the first same-sex marriages took place.

From ABC News:

"It's my privilege to officiate at this. Do you take each other to share your lives, to promise to take good care of one another for as long as you live?" Public Health Director James Gillan asked.

"I do," said Deasia Johnson of Killeen, Texas.

"I do," answered her bride, Nikki Dismuke of New Orleans.

"By the power vested in me by the laws of Guam, I pronounce you married," Gillan said before the two military members kissed to solemnize their vows.

With those words, in a ceremony that lasted less than a minute in Gillan's office, Johnson and Dismuke became the first gay couple to be legally married in a U.S. territory.

Loretta M. Pangelinan, 28, and Kathleen M. Aguero, 29, sued to overturn the territory's law after being denied a marriage application in April. They based their lawsuit on the prevailing opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had approved gay marriage in western U.S. states. Guam falls under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court.

Marriage Equality Comes To Guam

It took just about an hour and a half for Guam's chief federal judge to rule the territory's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

In doing so, Guam becomes the first U.S. territory to legalize same-sex marriage.

The ruling is expected to take effect on Tuesday.

From Pacific Daily News:

In her ruling, Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood said the laws denying marriage rights to same-sex couples were unconstitutional, citing a previous decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Guam.

Following her ruling, the courtroom erupted into applause for Loretta M. Pangelinan and Kathleen M. Aguero, the couple who filed the case.

Pangelinan and Aguero filed the case in April after they were denied a marriage license application at the Department of Public Health and Social Services. Their attorneys argued that the case had already been decided by the 9th Circuit in 2014 and, as a result, Guam had no choice but to follow suit.

9th Circuit Court Rejects Alaska's Request For Review Of Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Alaska's request for a full en banc review of the 9th Circuit Court decision which struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban has received a big fat "no."

In fact, not one of the 29 judges on the court asked for a vote to review the ruling.

Meanwhile, the state is currently on the hook for over $100,000 in court costs defending the unconstitutional law:

Gov.-elect Bill Walker said Thursday he plans to evaluate the case to see whether his administration will continue to defend the ban, indicating a shifting stance from before the election, when he called the current administration’s defense an “unwise” use of state money.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Law said the state had spent more than $100,000 defending against the lawsuit as of Oct. 31. The total bill could be more than $359,000.

Alaska Governor Requests En Banc Hearing On Same-Sex Marriage In 9th Circuit Court

Alaska's Gov. Sean Parnell has requested an en banc review of the recent same-sex marriage ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which effectively struck down the state's ban on marriage equality.

Saying the original 9th Circuit ruling was based on "erroneous circuit precedent." Gov. Parnell says the citizens of Alaska are "stripped of any ability to vindicate their 'historic and essential authority to define the marital relation.'"

Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho has filed a similar request with the 9th Circuit for an en banc hearing regarding same-sex marriage.

You can read Parnell's full brief below:

14-35856 #7 by Equality Case Files

Montana Judge Asked To Rule On Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Montana's same-sex marriage ban has been challenged by four couples with the request that the judge rule without going to court:

ACLU Montana legal director Jim Taylor says the 9th Circuit’s recent decision to strike down similar bans elsewhere in the West should convince U.S. District Judge Brian Morris to rule in their favor.

Montana is part of the 9th Circuit and district judges use decisions from the appellate court as precedents for their rulings.

Ninth Circuit Grants Stay In Alaska Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Until Noon Friday

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the state of Alaska a stay on a district court's ruling that the state's same-sex marriage ban in unconstitutional until Friday, October 17th at noon to allow Alaska an opportunity to seek a stay from the United States Supreme Court.

Should SCOTUS deny the request, the stay dissolves at 12:00 p.m. PDT on October 17, 2014.

Read the ruling here.

Nevada Haters Ask For Do-Over Because Ninth Circuit Court Stacked The Deck

As Nevadan gays and lesbians enjoy the freedom to marry across the state after last week's unanimous ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of same-sex marriage, the lawyer that represented the anti-gay Coalition for the Protection of Marriage has talked the group out of a bit more money with the idea of asking for a rehearing in the 9th Circuit en banc because, allegedly, the 9th Circuit stacked the deck in the gays favor.

Take note -  this is how to lose a case before you start.

Monte Stewart, lawyer for the Coalition, says that a full panel of judges should rehear the case due to the “high likelihood that the number of Judges [Stephen] Reinhardt and [Marsha] Berzon’s assignments to the Relevant Cases, including this and the Hawaii and Idaho marriage cases (which we treat as one for these purposes), did not result from a neutral judge-assignment process.”

Stewart says his claim is backed up by the result of “Careful statistical analysis” by Dr. James H. Matis.

From Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed:

Stewart went further, writing, “The appearance of unfairness is not a close question here. Even without the aid of professional statisticians, a reasonable person will immediately sense that something is amiss when one judge out of more than thirty is assigned over a four and one-half year period to five of this Circuit’s eleven cases involving the federal constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians, another to four of those cases, and both of them to the momentous ‘gay marriage’ cases.”

In an affidavit filed and signed by Stewart with the filing, he noted the legal team’s decision to obtain the analysis from Matis and contains Stewart’s personal conclusion that the panel of judges that heard the Nevada marriage case was one of the most favorable possible panels for the same-sex couple plaintiffs and “among the least favorable” for “the man-woman marriage side.” He then added that “such preferences and conclusions are known and understood by all at the Ninth Circuit involved with the judge-assignment process.”

Because of this claimed “appearance of unfairness,” Stewart argued in the request that an en banc rehearing is needed in order “to vindicate the values and integrity of [the appeals court’s] own judge-assignment process.”

What is important here, according to Stewart, is the "vivid appearance of unfairness." See, he's really concerned for the folks at the Ninth. What a guy.

Not a winning hand to play, if you ask me.

By the way, I'm not even sure if it was established that the anti-gay "Coalition" even had standing to argue against gay rights in the first place.

You can read the full brief here.

Nevada: Same-Sex Marriage SNAFU Due To Stay By Idaho

The Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage, anti-gay organization that defended Nevada's marriage ban after the governor and attorney general dropped their opposition, has filed a request to join Idaho Gov. Butch Otter's request for an emergency stay until an en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit Court.

Early today Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a stay order that seems to apply to both Idaho and Nevada, although Nevada did not apply for a stay. There is considerable chatter among the legal eagles as to whether that was Kennedy's intent, but in the meantime no marriages will take place today in Nevada.

Officials at Lambda Legal, the gay rights advocacy organization that argued the Nevada case on behalf of eight same-sex couples, noted that only Idaho sought the stay.

Jon Davidson, the group's legal director, called for the nation's highest court to clarify whether Nevada can issue marriage licenses. He argued the Nevada and Idaho cases had been consolidated only for purposes of Tuesday's decision, and that Nevada's inclusion in the stay may have been a mistake. "Nothing prevents clerks in Nevada from proceeding to issue licenses today," he said.

Nevada didn't seek a stay. Gov. Brian Sandoval and state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto issued a joint statement late Tuesday saying the state would take no further action. Sandoval, a Republican former federal district judge, said he determined the state had no way to defend its position after an appeals court ruling in another case in February.

So, now we wait to see if Kennedy will clarify his stay.

(via JMG)

Ninth Circuit Ruling: Lessons of Our Constitutional History

From today's ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the unconstitutionality of Idaho and Nevada's same-sex marriage bans.

I think this sums up a lot of truth:

"The lessons of our constitutional history are clear: inclusion strengthens, rather than weakens, our most important institutions.

"When we integrated our schools, education improved.

"When we opened our juries to women, our democracy became more vital.

"When we allowed lesbian and gay soldiers to serve openly in uniform, it enhanced unit cohesion.

"When same-sex couples are married, just as when opposite-sex couples are married, they serve as models of loving commitment to all."

HUGE NEWS! 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Nevada & Idaho Marriage Bans Unconstitutional

Via press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights:

Today’s decision, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, holds that “Idaho and Nevada’s marriage laws, by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated elsewhere, impose profound legal, financial, social and psychic harms on numerous citizens of those states.”

The decision further states: “Classifying some families, and especially their children, as of lesser value should be repugnant to all those in this nation who profess to believe in ‘family values.’ In any event, Idaho and Nevada’s asserted preference for opposite-sex parents does not, under heightened scrutiny, come close to justifying unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The Idaho case was brought in November 2013 by four same-sex couples: Sue Latta and Traci Ehlers, Lori and Sharene Watsen, Shelia Robertson and Andrea Altmayer, and Amber Beierle and Rachael Robertson. The couples are represented by Idaho attorneys Deborah Ferguson and Craig Durham of Ferguson Durham LLP and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). On September 8th, Ferguson argued before Ninth Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Marsha S. Berzon, and Ronald M. Gould that Idaho’s laws that ban marriage equality and prohibit the state from respecting the marriages of same-sex couples who married in other states violate the U.S. Constitution. The Idaho case was consolidated for purposes of the decision with Sevcik v. Sandoval, a case challenging Nevada’s marriage ban brought by same-sex couples represented by Lambda Legal.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals oral arguments end

From Buzzfeed's über-fab legal eagle on LGBT issues, Chris Geidner:

9th Circuit marriage cases are done. Plaintiff same-sex couples in ID & NV will succeed, likely 3-0 on equal protection grounds.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) September 8, 2014

Oral arguments in 9th Circuit Court today for Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii

Today at 1pm Pacific time, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments regarding marriage equality for Idaho, Nevada (my home state), and Hawaii.

You can watch via YouTube below or by going to www.ca9.uscourts.gov and clicking the website’s link, “Live Oral Arguments.”

Idaho will get a full hour (equally split for both sides) for oral arguments.  Nevada will follow with 30 minutes total, and then Hawaii will have 20 minutes to make each side's case.

If you want to follow the Twitter conversation, look for hashtag #9thCircuit

Ninth Circuit panel selected for marriage equality cases in Hawaii, Nevada and Idaho

According to Equality Case Files, the three-judge panel selected for next week's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearings on marriage equality bode well for the good guys.

The Nevada, Idaho and Hawaii cases will be heard consecutively next Monday, September 8th beginning at 4pm in San Francisco.

9th Circuit panel for #NV, #ID, #HI marriage cases announced: REINHARDT, GOULD and BERZON @LambdaLegal @NCLR @EqualityNevada
— Equality Case Files (@EQCF) September 1, 2014

Berzon joined Reinhardt in SmithKline. Gould wrote majority in Witt v. Air Force.
— Equality Case Files (@EQCF) September 1, 2014

Reinhardt wrote majority in Prop 8 case and SmithKline (latter held sexual orientation must withstand heightened scrutiny). #9thCircuit #ssm
— Equality Case Files (@EQCF) September 1, 2014

All judges on 9th Circ panel for ID HI & NV marriage cases have supported heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination @EQCF
— Dr. Gregory Herek (@DrGregoryHerek) September 1, 2014

9th Circuit Court ruling for "heightened scrutiny" regarding sexual orientation will stand

Most laws that create groups or classifications are tasked with demonstrating there is a rational basis, or a legitimate reason, for the law.

Laws subjected to "heightened scrutiny" have a steeper hill to climb. Those that classify based on race, must show a compelling state interest for classifying people. Other lawas, based on sexual orientation, must show an important state interest in doing so.

In the January ruling for the SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that “classifications based on sexual orientation … are subject to heightened scrutiny.”

In light of Abbott's decision to not appeal, the ruling will now affect all cases in the 9th Circuit Court moving forward.

From Buzzfeed:

On Jan. 21, the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit stated, “Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.”

Abbott had 14 days — which would have been Feb. 4 — to ask the 9th Circuit panel to rehear the case or for an en banc, or larger, panel of 9th Circuit judges to consider the appeal. Abbott asked for and was granted a 30-day extension, which passed March 6.

Friday night, the Human Rights Campaign announced in a news release that not only was Abbott not seeking further review from the 9th Circuit but additionally that the company would not be asking the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit decision.

“AbbVie (the pharmaceutical spin-off of Abbott Laboratories) recognizes that the implications of the Court’s findings extend far beyond the underlying case. For that reason, we chose not to appeal,” a spokesman for told BuzzFeed.