>Thanks for the
elaboration and the speculation on where the lower court went
'wrong' but the DOJ is going to lose their appeal for an emergency
That's an interesting prediction.
>"U.S. 9th Circuit judges appear to agree that states have
standing to challenge travel ban"
> A panel of U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals judges pushed back on the notion that the state of
Washington should not be allowed to sue on behalf of its
resident immigrants to block President Trump's travel ban.
>They noted that the Supreme Court recently recognized that a
wife could sue on behalf of her husband, an Afghan who was
denied a visa to join her in the United States.
>"His wife was allowed to sue,” said Judge William Canby,
referring to the case Kerry vs. Din.
>The exchange strongly suggests the judges believe the legal
claim filed by Washington state lawyers will not be thrown out
"Third-party standing" does indeed exist, under some circumstances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_standing But that fact does not mean that every conceivable third-party (for existence, everyone on Earth) can sue, for any reason at all. The above text merely indicates a case where one party (the wife) who has that third-party standing, in a different case. It does not say that any other person has third-party standing. To believe that this exchange "strongly suggests the judges believe the legal claim filed by Washington state lawyers will not be thrown out on standing grounds" shows Dolan's foolish misunderstanding of the relevance of that discussion.
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.
you really arguing we can't even ask if you have
evidence?" DOJ lawyer cites 9/11 attacks. Judge
Clifton... "That's pretty abstract!"
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
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
From the Wikipedia article I cited
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