To me the court has rejected the meaning of a Congressional Law passed in 1952 giving the President the Power over security and immigration . The law is not ambiguous and clearly describes that the President has that power. I quote:
‘the President has the authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).’
The judges are entering policy when they assess risk . This is not their role. Their role is to interpret whether the President has the power to issue the Executive Order under law and the Constitution. In both of these it is clear he does.
This is William Jacobsen’s ( Lawyer at Cornell University) opinion.
I provide this since Mr. Jacobsen of all those I have read always seems the most succinct.
‘The long and the short of the 9th Circuit opinion is quite outrageous.
The 9th Circuit failed to distinguish between people even the government concedes have some due process rights and as to whom it would not apply the Executive Order (e.g., permanent residents, those lawfully in the U.S. on a visa) and strangers abroad who may not even have applied for a visa. By failing, indeed refusing, to distinguish among those very different categories, the 9th Circuit effectively extends constitutional due process protections even to people who have not yet even applied for a visa.
The Court also confuses whether it has the power to review immigration actions of the President with substituting the court’s judgment as to reasonableness of security measures. The court substituted its own judgment that there was no proof of significant risk – but that’s a judgment the court doesn’t get to second guess, even if it can review executive action to evaluate constitutional claims.
There also are interesting legal issues of “standing” and procedural issues, but the heart of the decision is extending due process rights even to persons abroad.’