The HMA Law Firm - Immigration & Criminal Defense Lawyers

Call: 703.964.0245

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Practice
    • Immigration >
      • Employment-Based Immigration >
        • The H-1B Visa
        • Investor and Intracompany Transfers (E & L Visas)
        • PERM Labor Certification >
          • Cross Chargeability
          • EB-5 Green Cards
      • Marriage & Fiancé Visas >
        • Special Service for Servicemen
        • Marriage Interview Questions
        • The I-751 Good Faith Waiver
        • Evidence for Filing an I-751
        • My I-751 Was Denied: Now What?
        • Same-Sex Marriage Immigration Issues
        • New 90 Day Rule
      • General Immigration >
        • Filing a FOIA from USCIS
        • Form G-639: How to Complete
        • Re-Entry Permits
        • TPS >
          • More on TPS
          • SYRIA TPS
          • TPS Yemen
        • U Visas
      • Legal Victories
      • How To Choose The Right Immigration Lawyer
      • Waivers (I-601/I-601A) >
        • Drunk Driving (DUI/DWI) and I-601/I-601A Waivers
      • Citizenship >
        • N-648 Medical Waivers
        • Naturalization Pitfalls
        • The Civics Test for Naturalization
        • Exceptions for English Test
        • Criminal Convictions and Naturalization
      • Mandamus: It's Taking Too Long >
        • Mandamus: What to Think, What to Expect
        • How an Immigration Writ of Mandamus Works
        • Petition for Hearing on Naturalization
      • Deportation Defense >
        • Overview of Removal Proceedings
        • Deportation: Preventive Maintenance
      • Deferred Action (DACA) >
        • To Lawyer Or Not To Lawyer
        • Applying for a Social Security Number
    • Criminal Defense >
      • Traffic Offenses
    • Learn >
      • Immigration In A Nutshell >
        • The Visa Bulletin and Family Immigration
      • Criminal Immigration Law 101 >
        • Know Your Rights
      • Eligibility for Citizenship >
        • Citizenship versus Naturalization
        • Why Become a Citizen?
  • Consult/Pay Fees
  • Testimonials
  • Careers
  • Blawg
  • En Español
    • Accion Ejecutiva
    • El Interdicto Temporal
    • Buscar Detenido
    • Reforma Inmigratoria
    • Papeles Por Los Indocumentados

The HMA Law Firm Blawg

    Question? Contact a lawyer now!

Submit

4th Circuit Keeps Muslim Ban Blocked - But This Isn't Over

5/26/2017

1 Comment

 
PictureGet ready for a SCOTUS Showdown.
The 4th Circuit opinion keeping the Muslim Ban blocked - with concurrences and dissents - is a stage for a final showdown before the Supreme Court. A full panel of 13 judges ruled, 10 in favor of upholding the block on the ban, but not all for the same reasons, with 3 dissenting.

As one of the volunteer airport lawyers at Dulles, I was initially very excited yesterday to hear the ruling. After reading everything, though, I'm much more reserved, and not as excited. Because if (when?) this goes before the Supreme Court, the fragmented spectrum of rulings from the Court provides enough material for 5 Supreme Court justices to allow the travel ban to be reinstated.

I hope I am wrong. The 9th Circuit still has to rule. But the constitutional question on the limits of executive power has, to my knowledge, never been tested in this particular way. Perhaps the Supreme Court will deny certiorari and not take it up, but it likely will, eventually. And it should. Because there will be more bans, more walls, and more raids.

Analysis of Fourth Circuit Opinion

The majority opinion boils down to the words "bona fide." It is based on these words that the court was able to choose the appropriate Constitutional spotlights, with appropriate intensity and wattage, to strike down the government's argument.

After explaining the procedural posture of the case, the Court found that review of the Establishment Clause argument was appropriate. Next, it found at least one plaintiff to have standing (the legal right to bring the lawsuit) and rejected government arguments attempting to shield the order from judicial review.

Next was the question of what constitutional test - spotlight - to choose. The starting point was the Mandel test - which asks only if the action was "facially legitimate and bona fide." The court found while the second Executive Order (EO-2) was facially legitimate, it wasn't bona fide, because of the mountain of evidence of religious animus, both pre- and post-inauguration.

The Court elegantly joined two lines of cases to find that because EO-2 wasn't bona fide, it could apply the much stronger Lemon test. Lemon allowed the Court to peer behind the order and consider all the statements made by Trump and his advisors. While there may have been a facially legitimate/secular purpose of national security, the primary purpose of EO-2 was to discriminate against Muslims, and therefore, it fails. Of note: the Court was careful to note that this conclusion only made sense in this highly unique set of circumstances, where you had a single actor (Trump) saying he wanted to discriminate, and then going ahead and more or less immediately doing it.

Concurring opinions expanded the findings - no doubt to be relied on by the liberal Supreme Court justices like Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg. For example, one concurring opinion found that Trump overstepped his authority in even enacting such a ban whether the Establishment Clause was violated or not, because there had to be a "finding" that banning entry was in the national interest, and he made no such credible finding.

Judge Neimeyer's dissent, on the other hand, predictably found that the majority completely misread Mandel, and there was no justification to apply strict tests like the Lemon. In other words, they chose much dimmer (and fewer) spotlights.

Judge Shedd's dissent went further, and found that the courts shouldn't even question national security measures. For all intents and purposes, Shedd relied on one of the Supreme Court's most odious and repudiated (but still unreversed) decisions: Korematsu (the Japanese internment case). And Judge Agee went even further and found no plaintiff even had the right to bring the suit in the first place, neatly avoiding the entire messy Establishment Clause fight altogether. 

Between 13 judges, then, battle lines were drawn.

Why I'm Worried

Niemeyer's dissent is well-reasoned. True, he may have overstated the majority opinion somewhat, in that it's not that the majority created a new rule of law (read: spotlight), it comes down to whether Mandel allows that spotlight once you find that the EO isn't bona fide. But Niemeyer is not clearly wrong - and hence my subdued tone. I think Shedd and Agee were wrong: standing clearly exists, and relying on Korematsu in substance would be a legacy-destroying move. 

The bottom line, however, is that the majority opinion did go through some legal maneuvering to turn on the Lemon spotlight. I believe it was correct, but I'm not sure the Supreme Court will agree. There is far too much precedent mandating a hands-off deferential approach to matters of immigration and national security, and this EO is both.

A justice like Alito is a staunch supporter of religious freedom, but I'm not convinced he will do so in the immigration/national security context. Thomas will likely uphold the Muslim ban, and all the tools are there in Niemeyer's opinion to give reason for Chief Justice Roberts to uphold it as well. Justice Kennedy isn't much a fan of the Lemon test, though he is troubled by religious animus. Justice Breyer believes in deference, and is acutely sensitive to judicial overreach, though he will probably join the liberal wing of the Court in a case like this. And while recently appointed Justice Gorsuch is new, his originalist and literalist constitutional philosophy will gravitate towards upholding the ban.

So if Roberts and Kennedy uphold the ban, a 5-4 decision striking the Fourth Circuit's decision is a very real possibility. I sincerely hope the Ninth Circuit, in its upcoming ruling, picks apart Niemeyer's dissent, because the majority opinion of the Fourth Circuit didn't.

Takeaways

First, it was important that to make out an Establishment Clause violation, "feelings of marginalization" suffice to show injury. That means it becomes *incumbent* on us all, individually and collectively, not to let invidious discrimination slide. If we don't record it in public consciousness, the courts will have no measure to find injury. 

Second, take interest in who our judges are. Collectively, our panoply of judges is more important than who the President is.

Third, be proud of our Constitution and doctrine of separation of powers. I would be remiss if I didn't express what it felt like to read this cold, calculated legal analysis that protected the rights of my brothers and sisters in faith. After seeing examples of state-sanctioned discrimination in legal regimes around the world, I was filled with a sense of pride in our system that protects the rights of everyone.

Fourth, as one of the volunteer airport lawyers in the wake of these travel bans - holding our elected officials to the test is what made today's ruling possible. We fought for travelers from 7 countries, but were protecting something much larger that was under attack. Plaintiffs were found, and a legal strategy emerged. Many things had to fall into place in exactly the right way to make today's ruling possible.

Fifth, this isn't over. The administration is driven by an ideology. Even if they lose this battle, they are busy stacking the judiciary with judges of their liking, and building narratives correlating immigration and Muslims with crime and terrorism. Two years from now, the exact same ban could resurface, and the result would be opposite. 

​No doubt, this is a stress test on our system of government. So far, it seems to be holding up. Law is the glue that holds our society together, and the disintegration of the rule of law will affect all of us, whether we like it or not.

1 Comment
Writemyessaytoday.net rating link
7/28/2017 10:45:25 pm

What is happening to our world now. If there is any evidence that specific individuals or sub-groups within the country mean us harm then they should be the focus of security efforts.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    DISCLAIMER: If a blog post you read here contains case results, be advised that case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

    Authors

    Sharifa Abbasi, Esq.
    Hassan M. Ahmad, Esq.
    Humza Kazmi, Esq.
    Faisal Khan
    ​Valeria Prudencio
    Carly Stadum-Liang, Esq.

    Archives

    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    May 2014
    April 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    April 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    August 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    July 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    Categories

    All
    Appellate
    Asylum
    CBP
    Citizenship
    Constitutional Rights
    Criminal
    DACA
    Deportation
    Family
    Framing
    General
    H 1B
    H-1B
    Hma Law Firm
    Immigration
    Immigration Policy
    Immigration Reform
    International
    Interns
    Muslim Ban
    National Security
    Politics
    Removal
    Syria
    Tanton FOIA Lawsuit
    Trump
    Waivers

    RSS Feed

Quick Links

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Executive Action
  • Consult

Contact Info

8133 Leesburg Pike, Ste 801
Vienna VA 22182

Tel:  703.964.0245

Fax: 703.997.8556
Email: info@hmalegal.com

Subscribe to the HMA LawFeed

Picture

​Pay Fees Here

Book you consult online by clicking on this link now!

©2009 - 2021 by Hassan M. Ahmad. All rights reserved. No portion of this website may be copied or reproduced for any purpose without express written permission.

Photos used under Creative Commons from Beshroffline, Thorne Enterprises, alex-s, swanksalot, 401(K) 2012, hyku, Gage Skidmore, Gage Skidmore, michaeln3, Antony J Shepherd, Korean Resource Center 민족학교, Don Fulano, lewebafricain, Images_of_Money, Lord Jim, Kevinth Nunez, Joe Crimmings Photography, Cohen.Canada, Thane Eichenauer, Gage Skidmore, CGP Grey, digitalshay, anokarina, Debbie Ramone, slightly everything, loop_oh, aaron_anderer, U.S. Marshals Service, tsuacctnt, Andrew Feinberg, Official U.S. Navy Imagery, Soggydan, Keith Bacongco, photosteve101, Emery Co Photo, futureatlas.com, david_terrar, weiss_paarz_photos, juanktru, Anh Le Tran's Photogphy, Amanda M Hatfield, IcronticPrime, Fibonacci Blue, blvesboy, Carl Montgomery, zappowbang, khawkins04, kennethkonica, opensourceway, Supernico26, mynameisharsha, JBrazito, Glyn Lowe Photoworks, Justin A. Wilcox, Wesley Fryer, MAClarke21, khalid Albaih, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff