Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Explainer on "Muslim Ban" Litigation

Here's an explainer for Vox on the challenges to the Executive Order, including the forthcoming Ninth Circuit arguments.





| Permalink


Anyone want to discuss the possibility that in addition to quashing the TRO the appellate panel may go further, and dismiss some or all of Washington’s claims on “standing” grounds?

Here’s a 2015 Fifth Circuit opinion holding a state had standing to sue because of a fed executive branch action related to immigration:


Those judges held Texas had standing to sue. Texas met some stringent factors though, and Washington's AG Ferguson’s complaint doesn’t come close to alleging facts relating to those “standing” factors. In particular, Ferguson doesn’t allege 1) the Executive Order would cause it to spend considerably more money, nor does it allege 2) the E.O. would contravene Washington’s quasi-sovereign authority to make/retain its laws with respect to proper areas for it to control, or to enforce its existing laws.

Bear in mind, Congress gave the President nearly-complete authority over alien immigration, including making decisions about conditioning entry of aliens into this country. In contrast, no federal statute gives Washington State any authority over this country’s immigration policies.

Posted by: Art Cowen | Feb 8, 2017 10:02:46 AM

Post a comment