I haven’t gotten too involved in the so-called “travel ban” executive order – as TAC has been up to our ears in our work on other projects. However, I was just reading the Ninth Circuit’s order affirming the temporary restraining order and was struck – dead in my tracks – by this:
The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence.
Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the
It’s one thing to argue in court (they pretty much have to), that they’re right. It’s another thing entirely to say that a president’s action can’t even be reviewed for constitutionality. That says a lot about the administration’s views on executive power. And it’s not good.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- Getting it Wrong: James Madison’s 1830 Letter on Nullification - October 18, 2017
- A One-Track Mind: Most Lawyers on Nullification - October 14, 2017
- “Few and Defined,” not “Anything and Everything.” - October 9, 2017