Trump’s Executive Order – 9th Circuit Court of Appeals To Hear Argument On Temporary Injunction – Live Streamed

Because of public interest, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals plans to live stream oral argument on the temporary injunction order entered by the Washington federal court.  It can be accessed at this link.

Oral argument begins at 3 p.m. P.T.  That’s 5 p.m. CST and 6 p.m. on the East Coast.  Some sources are reporting that the live stream will be audio only because the attorneys are appearing by phone.

The 9th Circuit has also opened a website for documents filed in and proceedings held in the State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump.

It began on January 27, 2017 when Trump signed an Executive Order barring citizens from 7 predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days; refugees for 120 days, and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.

The ACLU filed a petition that resulted in a temporary injunction of Trump’s Executive Order that the court granted. Petitions were filed in other federal circuits as well.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in Boston granted a temporary injunction, but refused to extend it.  It was filed by the ACLU on behalf of 2 University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth professors who returned from an academic conference and were retained at Logan Airport.  The professors are Iranian Muslims and lawful permanent U.S. residents.  They were eventually allowed to re-enter.

It is the order entered by U.S. District Judge James Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington that sprung the Trump administration into action.  That order places a temporary injunction on Trump’s Executive Order nationwide.  Attorneys for the DOJ filed a notice of appeal and motion to stay the temporary injunction.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the stay.  It’s the appeal to the temporary order that is scheduled for hearing today.

Follow-up reports will be posted in the comment section.


Posted on 02/07/2017, in Cases, Department of Justice, politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 38 Comments.

  1. Thanks Xena, I posted the link on our local website.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Mr. Militant Negro

    Reblogged this on The Militant Negro™.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Turns out that today’s proceeding is not an appeal to the temporary injunction, but appeal to the denial of the stay of the temporary injunction. I’m listening now. The government is being represented by attorney August Flentje, and his argument thus far is because the prior administration identified the 7 countries as having or harboring terrorists, that the current administration has the right to stop immigration through an Executive Order.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. yahtzeebutterfly

    Listening now.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. yahtzeebutterfly

    Wonder how long it will take for the court of appeals to issue its decision.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Essentially, Trump does not want his Executive Order to be questioned. He doesn’t want the judiciary to review it to determine if it violates the Establishment Clause and Immigration Law.

    The way that the EO was carried out led to Trump re-interpreting it. Judge Clifton’s questioning about that was good — only Trump can alter his EO — not his legal counsel and the interpretation by the States of Washington and Minnesota leads to addressing the intent of the order.

    My thought — if the EO was not intended to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., then those with valid visas and permanent residence should have been allowed to enter from the time that the EO went into effect. As Purcell argued, even children who pose no harm were not allowed to enter the U.S.

    I don’t know when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will render its decision, but I am anxious to read it.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Two sides to a story

    Fascinating. Flentje didn’t seem to be doing too well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Two sides, he was clearly unprepared for the judges’ questions. His position presented the EO as ambiguous to circumvent the Establishment Clause and Immigration law. The EO is a quagmire. It doesn’t ban all Muslims, so it doesn’t necessarily commit discrimination, yet it bans citizens from certain countries which violates Immigration law.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. The three Appellate Court judges who heard oral argument today.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Oh -oh.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Dear Xena,

    We shall pray, wait and see what happens.The government’s attorney seemed to be less prepared even though the justices were asking tough questions of both attorneys.

    Hugs, Gronda.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, Gronda. The government’s main talking point seemed to be that the judiciary has no authority to review an Executive Order, even if it is alleged that it violates the constitution and existing law. Trump is mistaken. The branches are equal and serve as checks and balances of each other. He started the chaos with a stroke of the pen, and he could correct it the same way rather than take up the court’s time.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. In case anyone missed the live stream, here is the oral argument.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am going to listen to this through the day. I can already tell how inept he is by the comments here!


  12. yahtzeebutterfly

    “Appeals Court Panel Appears Skeptical of Trump’s Travel Ban”


    The appeals court judges sometimes seemed taken aback by the assertiveness of the administration’s position, which in places came close to saying the court was without power to make judgments about Mr. Trump’s actions.

    “This is a traditional national security judgment that is assigned to the political branches,” Mr. Flentje said.

    “Are you arguing, then, that the president’s decision in that regard is unreviewable?” Judge Michelle T. Friedland asked a few minutes later.

    Mr. Flentje paused. Then he said yes.

    “There are obviously constitutional limitations, but we’re discussing the risk assessment,” he said.

    Judge Friedland asked what those limitations were, and Mr. Flentje did not provide a direct answer.


    “Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?” she [Judge Friesland] asked Mr. Flentje.

    He responded that the government had not had an opportunity to present evidence in court given the pace of the litigation. “These proceedings have been moving quite fast, and we’re doing the best we can,” Mr. Flentje said.

    With that, Judge Friedland said, the government’s appeal may be premature.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. crustyolemothman

    Xema: Could you take a moment and explain how (in your opinion) donald tRump can twist the words of INS 212(f) Inadmissibility to Individuals Who are Detrimental to US Interests in a blanket yet selective manner? When I read it, my thoughts are that clause could only be used to ban a very limited, or singular, person or group. However he seems to wish to apply it in a blanket yet selective manner that would not hinder his own business dealing. If he really wanted this to be correct then he would have to have placed Saudi Arabia, who furnished the majority of the terrorists allegedly involved in the 9-11 attack.. Or have I missed some important fact involving this EO?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Good seeing you Mothman.
      That section of the Immigration Act pertains to denying aliens visas or admission to the United States based on health, criminal backgrounds, etc. As the ACLU argued in their brief filed in Brooklyn, the people who were detained at airports and those not allowed to board flights to the U.S. had valid Visas, or greencards. They went through the process of extensive vetting.

      One of Trump’s association problems is that he wants to represent to America that the people boarding flights to the U.S. from 7 countries are the same as stow-a-ways or compared to Mexicans crossing the border without U.S. permission.

      Washington and Minnesota’s argument is essentially that people have been approved to legally enter the United States, and Trump’s Executive Order turned them around.

      The DOJ attorneys appear to take a position that if they can prove that people from the 7 countries have committed crimes against the United States, that it will somehow make Trump’s EO legal. That is still however, in violation of INA Act 212 because the people have already received approval to enter the United States. In other words, Trump’s EO might apply to those still waiting for Visas or other permissions, but it cannot deny entry to those already vetted and given legal right to enter the U.S. Now, that is only one small part of the controversy, but hopefully this addresses your question.

      Liked by 2 people

      • crustyolemothman

        Thank you for your reply! I asked the question because as the tRump spoke today, he referred to this INS act as giving him the power to ban total groups of people at his discretion from entering this nation. IMO he has overstepped his authority and once again showing his lack of knowledge as to what his office and position allows, it would seem that perhaps he should demand that everyone call him King Donnie the Yuge and Wonderful…Oh well, what could you expect from a man that threatened to attack Mexico! 😉

        Liked by 2 people

        • Mothman,
          He and his supporters want to justify that previous presidents issued EO’s banning immigration. Well, I’ve been reading those EO’s and they are very specific with identification, such as “those who have assisted …” “those who are members of the … military …” “those undocumented …” or we were at war with those foreign governments.

          Trump reads the Immigration Act and does not distinguish the phrase “all aliens.” He would have down better had he banned the entry of people from all predominately Muslim countries, rather than only 7.

          Hopefully the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will have their decision entered before the end of this week. Based on some things Trump recently stated and his criticisms, he does not sound confident that he will prevail.

          Liked by 2 people

  14. yahtzeebutterfly

    “Jeff Sessions confirmed to be the next attorney general”

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Oh – oh.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “He said very specifically that they were demoralizing and disheartening and he characterized them very specifically that way,” Blumenthal said of Gorsuch. “I said they were more than disheartening and I said to him that he has an obligation to make his views clear to the American people, so they understand how abhorrent or unacceptable President Trump’s attacks on the judiciary are.”


      Liked by 1 person

  16. yahtzeebutterfly

    “9th Circuit Court Refuses to Reinstate President Trump’s Travel Ban”


  17. yahtzeebutterfly

    Liked by 1 person

  18. yahtzeebutterfly

    Liked by 1 person

    • crustyolemothman

      If King tRump were as wise as he thinks he is, he would simply rewrite the EO and correct the flaws that it contains. His supporters don’t seem to understand the govt. attorney did not argue the merits of the law only his right to impose it. It is questionable that the SCOTUS will even agree to hear the case until such time as the merits of the EO are actually challenged…


      • Mothman,

        “It is questionable that the SCOTUS will even agree to hear the case until such time as the merits of the EO are actually challenged.”

        You know, I was thinking the same thing. Instead of the federal government appealing the TRO, they should concentrate on the hearing for the preliminary injunction. If the Washington district court enters the preliminary injunction, then the TRO is moot.


%d bloggers like this: