What are Trump’s Options on Immigration Executive Order?

After Thursday’s not surprising decision to keep the block on President Donald Trump’s executive order to place a temporary ban on immigration and refugees, Trump took to Twitter saying ‘see you in court.’

Trump also responded:

It’s a political decision and we’re going to see them in court…”

“We have a situation where the security of our nation is at stake and it’s a very, very serious situation.”

The decision of the Appeals Court was no surprise at all. After all, it’s rare for the most liberal federal court in all of America to overturn the decision made by one of their own. Yes, Judge James Robart not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but as Senior Judge of the US District Court for the Western Division of Washington, it’s almost the same thing.

Liberals across the nation have been responding with joy over the latest decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, some answering Trump’s tweet with things like we did see you in court and beat you both times.

So, what are President’s Trump’s options at this stage of the game? One legal analyst said he has three options:

1- Ask the Supreme Court to consider the case,

2- Fight case by case, judging on merits in federal district courts, and

3- Create a new executive order which would give more notice to Congress and federal agencies that would be affected by it.

Appearing on CBS This Morning, Major Garrett gave a surprising comment, saying:

“If there is a silver lining for the White House and let’s face it legally speaking it’s hard to find, it is that congressional Democrats are beginning to sense the politics of this may in fact favor the President and are now talking much more openly about a legislative solution they can take some credit for.” [transcribed from DVR recording of program]

Frankly, it is more likely that President Trump will take his battle to the US Supreme Court and if the high court rules on law and not agenda, he will win. Why?

In the decision handed down by the Appeals Court, they never addressed the US Code on inadmissible aliens which gives the President the right to restrict immigration. The Code reads:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, 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.”

Trump’s attorneys referred to this Code in their defense before the Appeals Court, but the court decided to ignore the legal code and deny President Trump of his legal authority. Benjamin Wittes, Brookings Fellow and Lawfare Editor-in-Chief says the Code gives the President ‘sweeping power’ to restrict immigration and refugee entry into the US. He wrote:

“Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.”

Chances are, Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions will take this US Code with them as they argue the case before the Supreme Court. If the High Court ignores the Code, then every member who votes against Trump should be removed from the bench. After all, Supreme Court Justices are not appointed for life. The Constitution reads:

“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

If they ignore the US Code which legally gives Trump the authority to restrict immigration and refugees from entering the US, then they are no longer serving in good behavior and therefore should be immediately removed from the bench and replaced. Wouldn’t that gall the liberal Democrats.

Please leave your comments below