'Bad Day for the Separation of Powers': Trump Appointee Says 9th Circuit Blocked an Immigration Policy That's Constitutional
Ninth Circuit Judge Daniel Bress said his colleagues' decision denying the federal government's motion to stay an injunction in a case over a presidential proclamation requiring certain migrants to enter the U.S. with an approved health plan is "yet the latest example of our court allowing a universal injunction of a clearly constitutional Executive Branch immigration policy."
May 04, 2020 at 04:38 PM
3 minute read
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration's attempt to stay an injunction that halts enforcement of a presidential proclamation restricting certain immigrants from entering the U.S. without an approved health insurance plan.
In Monday's decision, however, recent Trump Ninth Circuit appointee Judge Daniel Bress dissented, saying that the court gave deference "to everyone but the President."
The government sought a motion to stay a preliminary injunction blocking the October proclamation, which the administration has said aims to reduce the costs of providing health care to uninsured individuals. In a majority opinion written by Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, and joined by Judge Marsha Berzon, the court found that the government did not establish the necessary irreparable harm to justify their motion to stay the injunction, which was issued by a trial judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in November.
"Even if we credit the Proclamation's assertions, the government has not demonstrated that the healthcare system will be irreparably burdened while this appeal is pending," Thomas wrote. "The record evidence shows that many of the immigrants affected by the Proclamation could obtain some form of insurance that would reduce their already minimal contribution to healthcare costs, but these immigrants are nonetheless inadmissible under the Proclamation because they cannot obtain an 'approved' health insurance plan or cannot obtain a plan within the 30-day deadline."
Naomi Igra, of Sidley Austin in San Francisco, argued the case for the appellees and did not respond to a request for comment Monday afternoon. Plaintiffs were also represented by attorneys from The Justice Action Center in Los Angeles and the Innovation Law Lab in Portland, Oregon.
In his dissent, Bress said the decision is "yet the latest example of our court allowing a universal injunction of a clearly constitutional Executive Branch immigration policy."
"There is no legal basis to impose novel and unjustified restrictions on what the Supreme Court has described as 'the President['s] sweeping authority to decide whether to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, and for how long," wrote Bress, citing Trump v. Hawaii, a 2017 Supreme Court decision that found President Donald Trump lawfully used his authority to suspend entry of migrants into the U.S.
"Yet the majority opinion gives deference to everyone but the President—the district court, whose analysis was deeply flawed; States who joined an amicus brief and who are not even parties to this case; and plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Leighton Ku, who candidly admits he performed 'not an ideal analysis,'" Bress wrote.
Bress said that policy debates should be resolved in Congress, the public square or the ballot box, not a district court or panel of judges in San Francisco.
"It is a bad day for the separation of powers when the Executive—operating at the apex of his constitutional mandate—loses out to players who lack the authority that the Constitution and Congress entrusted to him," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Effective Remedy'?: DOJ Unveils Corrective Action Plan in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readMango Labs Sues Ex-Employees for Over $10M After 'Egregious' Governance Nightmare
4 minute read'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
What Judicial Nominations Could Look Like Under a President Harris or Trump
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250