Quick update: Trump administration’s asylum ban injunction stay request denied.
Last Wednesday brought us the update story that the DOJ filed for an emergency stay request, after eight days, to lift US District Court Judge Jon Tigar’s Nov 19 temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to alter the immigration asylum laws through a Presidential Executive Order signed Nov 9.
Tigar’s national injunction would suspend the administration’s rule until Dec 19, which is the date set so the case can be decided by the court, saying, “whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.”
After filing their request for a stay, Judge Tigar gave Plaintiffs’ two days to respond to the Defendants’, i.e., the DOJ, request and ruled then he would decide on the matter of a stay on Friday, Nov 30.
On Friday, Courthouse News reported that Tigar’s said, “the government continued to fail to prove that the new policy is lawful,” writing in his ruling that, “nor have Defendants rebutted the significant harms that will by asylum seekers with legitimate claims and the organizations that assist them.”
At Friday’s hearing the DOJ also requested that in addition to its request to stay the injunction, that the court would also “allow the Rule [the president’s EO] to go into effect while they appeal the Court’s temporary restraining order to the Ninth Circuit.”
Justice Tigar concluded:
The law provides that the Court should only grant a stay if the Defendants can show they are likely to win their appeal or if the balance of harms tips in their favor. Defendants have not met this burden. They still have not shown that the Rule is a lawful exercise of Executive Branch authority or that any significant harm will accrue from continuing to implement the existing immigration laws passed by Congress, which is what the temporary restraining order requires. Nor have Defendants rebutted the significant harms that will be suffered by asylum seekers with legitimate claims and the organizations that assist them.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion for stay will be denied.
United States District Court Northern District of California; Nov 30
Finally, the Court rejects Defendants’ implicit suggestion that the only way to fix a statute they disagree with is to issue a rule that directly contravenes the statute. As Justice Gorsuch noted, “[i]f a statute needs repair, there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation. To be sure, the demands of bicameralism and presentment are real and the process can be protracted. But the difficulty of making new laws isn’t some bug in the constitutional design: it’s the point of the design, the better to preserve liberty.” Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1990 (2017) (Gorsuch, J., with Thomas, J., dissenting); see also U.S. Const., art. I, § 1 (“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States[.]”).
The motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
pdf; page 9
Huh. All these judges getting all constitutional on this administration.
*wipes figurative tear from eye*
😆
On A Side Note (Opinion)
I have been meaning to post this for the last month and keep forgetting.
Creepy robot.
David Hanson, CEO & Founder of Hanson Robotics says, “I hope that we can develop our AI and robots that make a deep, emotional connection.”
I think there is more creep going on than just with the inanimate object itself. I’m just sayin’.