Federal Judge HALTS new travel ban nationwide

[SteveRogers]

Having a glance through the judgement it all seems to be based on the idea that non resident aliens have rights under the constitution, which is contrary to all prior law. He talks about a Muslim man who is being descriminated against in his 'right to associate with family members oversees'. Has anyone ever heard of this 'right' before or did the judge just pull it out of his arse? People have pointed out that as recently as last year the Supreme Court confirmed that First Amendment applies to citizens only and yet one District Judge proclaims it applies to the entire planet because it suits his social justice ideology and never mind the law.

Except that isn't what the decision is about, and that isn't the legal reasoning the judge employed. You're mixing up the opinion's discussion of standing with the legal reasoning as to why the EO is (likely) unconstitutional. There are two plaintiffs in this suit. One is the state of Hawaii. The other is Dr. Elshikh. Dr. Elshikh is an American citizen. To bring suit, he must show that he has suffered a concrete injury from the government's executive order. The injury that he has suffered is the EO interferes with his ability to associate with family members who will now be denied entry to the U.S. You are correct that there is no constitutional right to visitation by non-citizen family members. But it is not this injury in and of itself that entitles Dr. Elshikh to relief. The injury just allows Dr. Elshikh to bring suit against the government. What entitles Dr. Elshikh to relief is the fact that his injury results from the government's unconstitutional conduct.

The court says the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits on their claim that the EO violates the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is not merely a grant rights to individual U.S. citizens, but rather an absolute limitation on what the federal government may do. The government may not establish religious tests. Period. Nothing in the first amendment or in any case law makes any exception for matters of immigration. The fact that non-citizens abroad have no constitutional right to challenge an unconstitutional immigration measure is irrelevant because here we have parties in the U.S. with proper standing to challenge the EO.

[SteveRogers]

Having a glance through the judgement it all seems to be based on the idea that non resident aliens have rights under the constitution, which is contrary to all prior law. He talks about a Muslim man who is being descriminated against in his 'right to associate with family members oversees'. Has anyone ever heard of this 'right' before or did the judge just pull it out of his arse? People have pointed out that as recently as last year the Supreme Court confirmed that First Amendment applies to citizens only and yet one District Judge proclaims it applies to the entire planet because it suits his social justice ideology and never mind the law.

Except that isn't what the decision is about, and that isn't the legal reasoning the judge employed. You're mixing up the opinion's discussion of standing with the legal reasoning as to why the EO is (likely) unconstitutional. There are two plaintiffs in this suit. One is the state of Hawaii. The other is Dr. Elshikh. Dr. Elshikh is an American citizen. To bring suit, he must show that he has suffered a concrete injury from the government's executive order. The injury that he has suffered is the EO interferes with his ability to associate with family members who will now be denied entry to the U.S. You are correct that there is no constitutional right to visitation by non-citizen family members. But it is not this injury in and of itself that entitles Dr. Elshikh to relief. The injury just allows Dr. Elshikh to bring suit against the government. What entitles Dr. Elshikh to relief is the fact that his injury results from the government's unconstitutional conduct.

The court says the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits on their claim that the EO violates the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is not merely a grant rights to individual U.S. citizens, but rather an absolute limitation on what the federal government may do. The government may not establish religious tests. Period. Nothing in the first amendment or in any case law makes any exception for matters of immigration. The fact that non-citizens abroad have no constitutional right to challenge an unconstitutional immigration measure is irrelevant because here we have parties in the U.S. with proper standing to challenge the EO.

-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2017/266447.htm

Hm...

Your point?

[SteveRogers]

He  then asserts, without evidence, that the purpose of the proposed ban on Muslim entry to the US was not, as Trump said at the time, to prevent terrorism but was to ban Muslims from entering the US. In other words he absurdly asserts that proposed Muslim entry to the US ban was its own purpose.

So the judge is saying that a secular test for a stated secular purpose must, in reality, have a religious purpose because it evolved from a proposed religious test and he assumes that that had a religious purpose. In others words he is saying that this secular test has a religious purpose but that it is impossible for a religious test to have a secular purpose. This is pure sophistry and rhetorical sleight of hand from the judge looks for legal sounding excuses to promote his transparent 'social justice' agenda.

It does not matter what "secular purpose" Trump might have mentioned in conjunction with his proposed Muslim ban on the campaign trail. The fact of the matter is that the original Muslim ban that Trump proposed on the campaign trail would be unconstitutional no matter what. Saying "We need to ban all Muslims because terrorism" is no more a legitimate way to skirt the Constitution than saying, "We need to keep black students out of white schools to preserve order and promote effective education." No competent constitutional lawyer could seriously contend that a flat-out Muslim ban would ever pass constitutional muster, nor have the government's lawyers made that argument. The only argument to be had here is over whether or not Trump's EO was intended to take the place of his original proposal for a Muslim ban.