As trained appellate attorneys learn, a court’s opinion often gives away “tells” of the court’s own confidence, or absence thereof, in their opinion. Like a poker player at the table, some tells hide a weak hand. And few judicial “hands” are as weak as the Ninth Circuit’s opinion to let the Washington court’s stay on Trump’s immigration order stand.
Read MoreTwo different courts, on opposite coasts, ruled in opposite directions on Friday. A Boston federal court affirmed Trump’s executive order as “bona fide”; a Seattle federal court enjoined it. Both spoke to requests for “nationally” effective rulings. Can federal courts give conflicting directions to government employees? Did Homeland predict this in their screenplays?
Read MoreOpening Statement On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom, whose position is likely to ultimately win?
Read MoreThe founders passed the first immigration ban premised on fear of foreign radicals infiltrating the new nation. Sound familiar? Who pushed for and passed the law? President John Adams, our second President.
Read MoreThe press enjoys a certain liberty and license with evidence and court precedents that a lawyer cannot so easily employ within the confines of the law. So, what does the evidence of precedent say about the recent flurry of legal actions over Trump's Friday immigration orders?
Read More