>Judge Clifton asks how many federal offenses committed by people
from these countries, answers own question: "None." DOJ lawyer
mentions >Somali al-shabaab, that's never committed any attack on
US soil anywhere.
>"Are you really arguing we can't even ask if you have evidence?"
DOJ lawyer cites 9/11 attacks. Judge Clifton... "That's pretty
Chances are, you (and most other non-lawyers) haven't a clue about what lawyers call "procedural issues".
The hearing with the 9th Circuit should have had NOTHING to do with the merits of the complainants' case. (Or, at least, it shouldn't have.) That's simple procedure.
The issue they were considering was: Should the lower court have granted the injunction against enforcement of the government's order, and should it be overturned?
The error the lower court (Federal District Court) judge made was this: It granted the injunction (a prohibition on the government's Order, temporarily) based (presumably) on the conclusion that the plaintiffs (the states) were likely to win the case, and so were entitled to that injunction. The problem with that conclusion is:
1. The plaintiffs (the State of Washington) had no "legal standing" to bring the suit, at all, because it was not an "injured party". There may have been injured parties, but they did not bring this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)×
2. The government order was not, per se, violating statutory law nor the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the relevant law specifically allowed the President to bring and enforce such orders.
If the district court had done the right thing, it would never have issued the injunction. If the appeals panel does the right thing, it will overturn the lower-court injunction, possibly allowing the government to continue to enforce the government order at least until the merits themselves are decided at the lower-court level. However, the appeals court panel should probably declare that the plaintiffs don't have standing, and thus order the lower court to throw out the case, at least until plaintiffs with standing appear.
From the Wikipedia article I cited above:
"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."