Welcome to LoudounTimes.com
Loudoun Times-Mirror

Judge grants injunction against Trump travel ban in Virginia

A federal judge Monday granted a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from implementing its travel ban in Virginia, adding another judicial ruling to those already in place challenging the ban's constitutionality.

The ruling is significant from a legal standpoint because U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema found that an unconstitutional religious bias is at the heart of the travel ban, and therefore violates First Amendment prohibitions on favoring one religion over another. She said the evidence introduced so far indicates that Virginia's challenge to the ban will succeed once it proceeds to trial.

A federal appeals court in California has already upheld a national temporary restraining order stopping the government from implementing the ban, which is directed at seven Muslim-majority countries. But the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was rooted more in due process grounds, said Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat who brought the lawsuit against Trump in Virginia.

"Judge Brinkema's ruling gets right to the heart of our First Amendment ... claim," Herring said in a conference call Monday night.

In her 22-page ruling, Brinkema writes that Trump's promises during the campaign to implement what came to be known as a "Muslim ban" provide evidence that the current executive order unconstitutionally targets Muslims.

"The president himself acknowledged the conceptual link between a Muslim ban and the EO (executive order)," Brinkema wrote. She also cited news accounts that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani said the executive order is an effort to find a legal way for Trump to be able to impose his Muslim ban.

Herring said that "the overwhelming evidence shows that this ban was conceived in religious bigotry."

Also, the preliminary injunction issued Monday night by Brinkema in Alexandria is a more permanent type of injunction than the temporary restraining order issued in the Washington state case. Herring said he expects the injunction to remain in place until the case goes to trial.

Brinkema's injunction, though, applies only to Virginia residents. Herring had asked the judge to issue the injunction nationwide, but Brinkema limited it to Virginia, saying that the nationwide restraining order in place out of the Washington state case already provides much of the relief Virginia is seeking. Herring said he could ask the judge to extend the injunction nationally if the 9th Circuit stay gets reversed.

Virginia's lawsuit also does not challenge the portion of the executive order directed at refugees. The 9th Circuit case covers refugees.

Virginia based its arguments on the harms the state would suffer if the travel ban were allowed to go forward. The state has said, for instance, that 1,000 students at its universities and dozens of university staff members and professors could be affected by the ban.

In her ruling, Brinkema said the Trump administration offered no justification for the travel ban, and wrote that the president's executive power "does not mean absolute power."

Brinkema chided the federal government for offering no evidence to support its rationale for the ban, other than arguing the president's authority for issuing such an order.

She said the president's executive authority is still limited by the Constitution. "Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set by Congress' delegation of power and the constraints of the Constitution, including Bill of Rights," she wrote.

A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately return an email seeking comment Monday night. Trump has raised the possibility that he will issue a new executive order to replace the one being challenged in court.

Comments


Equity is low information, she gets her news from CNN and they are Fake news. She waste her time posting on here. She only gets laughed at.


tRump & sons travel total = $11.3 million in one month = almost as much as Obama spent in one year.

“During his eight years in office, Obama’s travel expenses averaged $12.1 million a YEAR. At this rate, Trump is on target to rack up $140 million a year, a staggering 1,157% more.” independent


Equity, there you go believing that fake news from a Democrat politician.

Look up the Ohio State University attack (terrorist incident) in the fall of 2016 on Wikipedia.  The perp was a Somali refugee.  Somalia is one of the countries on the list.  There are more.

Why would you believe the propaganda from the Democrat party?  Oh, that right.  You are a Democrat and involved in spreading that same propaganda.  But do you actually believe it?


“The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president’s executive order,” jerry nadler

tRump untethered from reality - won’t protect us from white supremacists or homegrown radicals


I don’t think any administration spent more of the tax payers money on carting his family around than Obama.  But I digress. I believe the real issue is if the President has the right AND obligation to protect the citizens of this country. When I read the Constitution I see that he not only has the right to do so, it is his duty.


Maybe you miss most of the news, attuned as you are to the power of fake news.  Did you see this headline?

Eric Trump’s business trip to Uruguay cost taxpayers $97,830 in hotel bills.

Google can help you with this.l


Yo, GrabembytheObama, you are low information.Get your facts correct before you post ignorant statements. President Trump and his family haven’t even traveled around the world yet, since he’s been POTUS.
We need to ban you from posting ignorant statements.


After reading about how Trump costs the taxpayer huge amounts of money to follow him and his fully grown kids around the world (and pockets the fees for the Secret Service and others staying in his hotel), I thought this headline meant we weren’t going to allow them to travel in Virginia. 

Folks, that’s the sort of Trump Travel Ban I could get behind!


After reading about how Trump costs the taxpayer huge amounts of money to follow him and his fully grown kids around the world (and pockets the fees for the Secret Service and others staying in his hotel), I thought this headline meant we weren’t going to allow them to travel in Virginia. 

Folks, that’s the sort of Trump Travel Ban I could get behind!


more extreme vetting for trumputin - should have happened long ago

thanks for real leaders such as herring & brinkema


Saw a comment on here that the poster was concerned with how the “alt left” people have been acting since the election. Not exactly sure what this poster meant by this. As far as I’m concerned protesting and stating your views are the most American thing one can do. How easily people forget. When obama was elected we had republicans in congress basically say we will not do our jobs cause we don’t agree with who the American people chose as president (acting like children). We will make him a one term president. Now that’s something that should have concerned you. As American citizens it’s our duty to question elected officials and if they’re not acting in the best interest of the country then they need to go.


Oncerural4, you’re comparing an EO with the second amendment? FAIL.


these fools who believe that PRESIDENT TRUMP went beyond his executive power were totally silent when Obama totally overreached on his authority. “Not For” Lawman would be the 1st to scream out of his racist mouth that Trump should be impeached or removed from office if there is another Terrorist attack.


By the logic of the judge’s ruling, POTUS could never implement a temporary halt to immigration of a country or region of the world for security or safety reasons.  EVERY country has a majority religion.  Therefore, by the logic of the judge, if there were an ebola outbreak in Congo, and POTUS temporarily halted immigration from Congo for the safety of US citizens, it could be deemed unconstitutionally biased towards Christians.  (I realize this would never happen because we are permitted to say or do anything we like to Christians, because somehow freedom of speech and expression have more weight when the victim is Christian).  Also, by that logic, the 2016 Cuban refugee ban could be deemed anti-Cuban racist, unconstitutionally biased anti-Christian.  Where are those protests?  It is the same situation with the difference being the President that implemented the ban and the religion that is affected.


What with Flynn’s resignation, the drip-drip of troubling Russia revelations, his holding foreign policy meetings in a public restaurant by the light of a cellphone, his travel ban struck down in multiple courts, the chaos involving Obamacare, his staffers telling lies each Sunday on the public affairs shows, his lack of transparency in his business dealings,  attacks on the federal judiciary and a series of bizarre pronouncements on everything from Ivanka Trump’s fashion line to Frederick Douglass…to all but the most rabid Trump supporter, it’s clear we have amateur hour at the White House, choreographed by a malevolent batch of incompetents.

I sleep better knowing that there are some checks on this guy.  Wish there were more.


Good grief. Trump supporters claim that he just wants stronger vetting. Hello…isn’t that what most people want for gun ownership but he doesn’t? oh, THAT’s right..he wants the rules to be different for he and his ‘buds’. This is the worst


“Muslim Ban” ... Seems like more and more a political tactic is to parrot a lie over and over again and the low information crowd will hold it as truth. 

I am a fiercely independent American and can usually see good and bad on both sides, but with the way the “alt” left (I hope this is a very vocal minority of “Americans” that do not represent democrats as a whole) has acted since the election is really beginning to concern me.


Note the Trump administration doesn’t have to prove conditions have changed since the Obama administration. They just have to show there is some danger and the tolerance for terrorist activity has been recalibrated lower. The Democrat appointed judges may not like that but judges don’t get to determine the amount of risk the people are willing to withstand (via their elected president).

The folks that are saying Trump’s order is invalid because he forecasted he would implement tighter immigration rules are crazy. You would end up with a system where if you didn’t campaign on the issue (Hillary) then you could issue the EO right now but if you did campaign on it (Trump) you could not. That view is fantasy. Trump didn’t just decide one day he didn’t like a certain religion. He campaigned on stopping religious extremists. It just so happens we don’t have extremist Hindus, Christians, Jews, or Buddhists as immigrants these days. The extremists are Muslims. Not all Muslims are extremists but virtually all extremists are Muslims. Thus an order to stop Muslim extremists is constitutional and is implemented by additional security checks on nations without secure documentation or functioning governments.

Not sure why Trump wanted to test the “whatever I say goes” theory and not include any notional documentation in his pleadings. He will now have to and he will win on the substance of the EO.

Besides, Gorsuch will be on the bench by the time SCOTUS reviews.


The President campaigned on implementing a Muslim ban and lacking any other clear justification for the order, it is reasonable for the judge to conclude that Mr. Trump is following through on what he said he would do.  The Administration has provided no evidence of imminent danger (as the Obama administration did when they implemented their travel restrictions), so the justification seems thin at best.


More people with hostile intent toward the Government in Idaho than come into this country in a year.  Let’s be real, white males commit most if not all of the mass killings in this country.  Do we do more extreme vetting of white males buying guns no.  So you can throw that security nonsense out the window.  The most dangerous people come from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  You think they going to cut off people from Saudi Arabia, NOT!!!!!  Security yeah right


“But, but, it’s not a Muslim ban” they cry.

Yea, it’s no good when people take Orange POTUS and his advisors at their word.

It’s amateur hour at the White House. They’re flailing around in dysfunction for the whole world to see and the only people who think it’s normal are those dining at Mar a Largo who are entertained by watching the clowns view classified documents with their phone flashlights.

 


Folks, I believe the EO was constitutional.  However, it makes no sense to criticize LTM for a syndicated Associated Press article.  The article was actually careful to quote the federal judge in the order.

Note that the Justice Dept chose not to present a single shred of documentation on the EO but merely to claim it had authority to issue the EO.  Why, I cannot tell you given there is ample evidence of violent attacks/attempts both here and abroad.  But if you don’t offer any evidence, then lowsy evidence beats no evidence.

Also note that the only protected folks were “Virginia residents” meaning they were present in the country at the time of the order.  Even illegal immigrants are provided due process (this is why our court system is so backed up) once they are physically present.

The EO, as implemented, is still constitutional but the administration will have to at least defend it.  It’s likely they just issue a new one so that the disputed implementation is no longer in play.


in the end, President Trump (love the sound of that) will just issue a revised order that does exactly the same thing. So, a temporary order for those of you who put political correctness above common sense and national security. But hey, celebrate your temporary victory…you won’t get many over the next eight years.


Perhaps we could assess these comments if the commentators could state their credentials as part of their posts.  I would give a lot of credence to someone who has a law degree in constitutional law.

The People are the highest power in the land; however, the courts are responsible for judging the constitutionality of any law or decree.  The Founders decided on that little conundrum.  Those who profess love for the constitution should also have e


Hate to see the Trump supporters—marinated as they are in the fake-news stew of Breitbart, Fox and of course, the President and his top aides—lose their composure.  But facts are facts and they can be quite stubborn and impartial.

Trump’s own tweets show he wanted to implement a muslim ban.  Why did they make the exceptions for Christians in the order?  There are other questions we could ask but why bother.

The judicial branch can review and declare anything unconstitutional.  That’s the American system of government.  Hysterical folks would prefer a dictatorship (well, for as long as someone the like was dictator…otherwise it would be more of the bellowing about executive overreach we all heard for the past eight years).


First. Mr Herring should resign as AG or at least revoke his law degree. This is NOT a Muslim ban> Making that claim shows ignorance or bias. The TRAVEL BAN does not apply to 82% of the world’s Muslims. It is shameful to claim otherwise. Judge Brinkema is over stepping her bounds. She is not qualified to access National Security. Did she oppose he travel ban Under Mr Obama.
Hypocrisy does not look good on any judge or official of the Commonwealth


Secondly,  this newspaper is presenting a total lie! There is a very CLEAR distinction that the White House has mentioned MANY times! Now, this newspaper seeks to fall in the same category as other Liberal News media organizations by falsely saying Trump has admitted to it being a “Muslim Ban”.. In fact Trump has CLEARLY pointed out that the largest Muslim nation in the world is NOT a part of this ban!

The “clarity” is, our enemies ALL come from one religion! That’s just the facts! Anyone who continues to be ignorant to this claim needs to be REMOVED from ANY office where clarity, sound judgment and security of our nation is involved.


We’ve come to a very interesting place in our supposed free nation. Now, Judges without a SINGLE CLUE about our security, who are not privy to intelligence, are allowed to block another branch of our government which oversees the single most IMPORTANT element of our government’s primary mission!

There is no higher ignorance than for uninformed parties to make such powerful decisions that could indeed put our citizens at risk!

This ridiculous battle between socialism and freedom has to stop! Our court system is NOT the highest power in the land. Wake up people!

Right now all you care about is pushing forward a socialist liberal agenda, tomorrow, when its someone close to you who ends up being the victim of this STUPID mistake, it will be too late to have clarity!


Another political robe that needs to be retired.  No where in the order does it state anything about religion…judicial reform is long overdue…these bureaucrats think they are above the people…

Post a comment

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at [email protected].

More News

As Seen IN PRINT
The Loudoun Times-Mirror

is an interactive, digital replica
of the printed newspaper.
Click here for all e-editions.
Email UPDATES