Full Text Political Transcripts February 9, 2017: 9th Circuit of Appeal Denies Reinstatement of President Donald Trump’s Travel Ban Washington v Trump Opinion

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

02/09/2017

Published Order Denying Stay PD

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF    No. 17-35105
MINNESOTA,    D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.    2:17-cv-00141

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the    ORDER
United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; REX W.
TILLERSON, Secretary of State; JOHN
F. KELLY, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellants.

Motion for Stay of an Order of the
United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2017

Filed February 9, 2017
Before: William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and
Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges
Per Curiam Order

COUNSEL
August E. Flentje (argued), Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General; Douglas N. Letter, Sharon Swingle, H. Thomas Byron, Lowell V. Sturgill Jr., and Catherine Dorsey, Attorneys, Appellate Staff; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Noel J. Francisco, Acting Solicitor General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellants.
Noah G. Purcell (argued), Solicitor General; Marsha Chien and Patricio A. Marquez, Assistant Attorneys General; Colleen M. Melody, Civil Rights Unit Chief; Anne E. Egeler, Deputy Solicitor General; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Attorney General’s Office, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Washington.
Jacob Campion, Assistant Attorney General; Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General; Lori Swanson, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Minnesota.

ORDER
PER CURIAM:
At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and
temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order. The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds.
To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.
Background
On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977. Citing the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and stating that “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes” since then, the Executive Order declares that “the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.” Id. It asserts, “Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.” Id.
The Executive Order makes several changes to the policies and procedures by which non-citizens may enter the United States. Three are at issue here. First, section 3(c) of the Executive Order suspends for 90 days the entry of aliens from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977- 78 (citing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 217(a)(12), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)). Second, section 5(a) of the Executive Order suspends for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. Upon resumption of the refugee program, section 5(b) of the Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to prioritize refugee claims based on religious persecution where a refugee’s religion is the minority religion in the country of his or her nationality. Id. Third, section 5(c) of the Executive Order suspends indefinitely the entry of all Syrian refugees. Id. Sections 3(g) and 5(e) of the Executive Order allow the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to make case-by-case exceptions to these provisions “when in the national interest.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8,978- 80. Section 5(e) states that situations that would be in the national interest include “when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. The Executive Order requires the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to evaluate the United States’ visa, admission, and refugee programs during the periods in which entry is suspended. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977-80.

The impact of the Executive Order was immediate and widespread. It was reported that thousands of visas were immediately canceled, hundreds of travelers with such visas were prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the United States or denied entry on arrival, and some travelers were detained. Three days later, on January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, naming as defendants the President, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the United States (collectively, “the Government”). Washington alleged that the Executive Order unconstitutionally and illegally stranded its residents abroad, split their families, restricted their travel, and damaged the State’s economy and public universities in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the INA, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington also alleged that the Executive Order was not truly meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a “Muslim ban” as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.
Washington asked the district court to declare that the challenged sections of the Executive Order are illegal and unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement nationwide. On the same day, Washington filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to enjoin the enforcement of sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order. Two days later, Washington’s Complaint was amended to add the State of Minnesota as a plaintiff and to add a claim under the Tenth Amendment. Washington and Minnesota (collectively, “the States”) jointly filed an amended motion for a TRO. The Government opposed the motion the next day, and the district court held a hearing the day after that.
That evening, the court entered a written order granting the TRO. Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) . The district court preliminarily concluded that significant and ongoing harm was being inflicted on substantial numbers of people, to the detriment of the States, by means of an Executive Order that the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful. Id. at *2. The district court enjoined and restrained the nationwide enforcement of sections 3(c) and 5(a) -(c) in their entirety. Id. It enjoined section 5(e) to the extent that section “purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities,” and prohibited the government from “proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.” The court also directed the parties to propose a briefing schedule for the States’ request for a preliminary injunction and denied the Government’s motion to stay the TRO pending an emergency appeal. Id. at *3.
The Government filed a notice of appeal the next day and sought an emergency stay in this court, including an immediate stay while its emergency stay motion was under consideration. We denied the request for an immediate stay and set deadlines for the filing of responsive and reply briefs on the emergency stay motion over the next two days.1 Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 469608 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2017). The motion was submitted after oral argument was conducted by telephone.
1 We have also received many amicus curiae briefs in support of both the Government and the States.

Appellate Jurisdiction
The States argue that we lack jurisdiction over the Government’s stay motion because the Government’s appeal is premature. A TRO is not ordinarily appealable.
See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 2002). We may nonetheless review an order styled as a TRO if it “possesses the qualities of a preliminary injunction.”
Serv. Emps. Int’l Union v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare Workers, 598 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010). This rule has ordinarily required the would-be appellant to show that the TRO was strongly challenged in adversarial proceedings before the district court and that it has or will remain in force for longer than the fourteen-day period identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). See, e.g., id.
We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The district court’s order has no expiration date, and no hearing has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently scheduled briefing on the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction, it is apparent from the district court’s scheduling order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which the Government has argued that emergency relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism, we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction.
Standing
The Government argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the States have no standing to sue. We have an independent obligation to ascertain our jurisdiction, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and we consider the Government’s argument de novo, see, e.g., Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the States have made a sufficient showing to support standing, at least at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.
Article III, section 2 of the Constitution allows federal courts to consider only “Cases” and “Controversies.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007). “Those two words confine ‘the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’” Id. (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). ”Standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement” and is therefore a prerequisite to our jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The “gist of the question of standing” is whether the plaintiff has a sufficiently “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” to ensure that the parties will be truly adverse and their legal presentations sharpened. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury.” Id. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
Because standing is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case,” it “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. At this very preliminary stage of the litigation, the States may rely on the allegations in their Complaint and whatever other evidence they submitted in support of their TRO motion to meet their burden. See id. With these allegations and evidence, the States must make a “clear showing of each element of standing.” Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013).3
The States argue that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities, which the parties do not dispute are branches of the States under state law. See, e.g., Hontz v. State, 714 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Wash. 1986) (en banc); Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor, 620 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn. 2001).
Specifically, the States allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order’s effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries. These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit. Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.
According to declarations filed by the States, for example, two visiting scholars who had planned to spend time at Washington State University were not permitted to enter the United States; one was informed he would be unable to obtain a visa. Similarly, the University of Washington was in the process of sponsoring three prospective employees from countries covered by the Executive Order for visas; it had made plans for their arrival beginning in February 2017, but they have been unable to enter the United States. The University of Washington also sponsored two medicine and science interns who have been prevented by the Executive Order from coming to the University of Washington. The University of Washington has already incurred the costs of visa applications for those interns and will lose its investment if they are not admitted. Both schools have a mission of “global engagement” and rely on such visiting students, scholars, and faculty to advance their educational goals. Students and faculty at Minnesota’s public universities were similarly restricted from traveling for academic and personal reasons.
Under the “third party standing” doctrine, these injuries to the state universities give the States standing to assert the rights of the students, scholars, and faculty affected by the Executive Order. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114-16 (1976) (explaining that third-party standing is allowed when the third party’s interests are “inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue”; when the litigant is “fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right” as the third party; or when the third party is less able to assert her own rights). Vendors, for example, “have been uniformly permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function.” Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 195 (1976). Likewise, doctors have been permitted to assert the rights of their patients. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). And advocacy organizations such as the NAACP have been permitted to assert the constitutional rights of their members.
Most relevant for our purposes, schools have been permitted to assert the rights of their students. See, e.g., Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 175 & n.13 (1976) (“It is clear that the schools have standing to assert these arguments [asserting free-association rights, privacy rights, and ‘a parent’s right to direct the education of his children’] on behalf of their patrons.”); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 536 (1925) (allowing a school to assert the “right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training [and] the right of the child to influence the parents’ choice of a school”); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Pierce and rejecting the argument that the plaintiff school had no standing to assert claims of discrimination against its minority students); see also Ohio Ass’n of Indep. Sch. v. Goff, 92 F.3d 419, 422 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing similar authorities). As in those cases, the interests of the States’ universities here are aligned with their students. The students’ educational success is “inextricably bound up” in the universities’ capacity to teach them. Singleton, 428 U.S. at 115. And the universities’ reputations depend on the success of their professors’ research. Thus, as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.
We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. And we have no difficulty concluding that the States’ injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The Government does not argue otherwise.
We therefore hold that the States have standing.
Reviewability of the Executive Order
The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches with respect to national security and foreign relations). Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.
Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context. See Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations”); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41 (rejecting the argument that Congress has “unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens,” and affirming that courts can review “whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing that power”).6 Our court has likewise made clear that “[a]lthough alienage classifications are closely connected to matters of foreign policy and national security,” courts “can and do review foreign policy arguments that are offered to justify legislative or executive action when constitutional rights are at stake.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), does not compel a different conclusion. The Government cites Mandel for the proposition that “‘when the Executive exercises’ immigration authority ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion.’” The Government omits portions of the quoted language to imply that this standard governs judicial review of all executive exercises of immigration authority. In fact, the Mandel standard applies to lawsuits challenging an executive branch official’s decision to issue or deny an individual visa based on the application of a congressionally enumerated standard to the particular facts presented by that visa application. The present case, by contrast, is not about the application of a specifically enumerated congressional policy to the particular facts presented in an individual visa application. Rather, the States are challenging the President’s promulgation of sweeping immigration policy. Such exercises of policymaking authority at the highest levels of the political branches are plainly not subject to the Mandel standard; as cases like Zadvydas and Chadha make clear, courts can and do review constitutional challenges to the substance and implementation of immigration policy. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41.
This is no less true when the challenged immigration action implicates national security concerns. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 19 (1942) (stating that courts have a duty, “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty”); Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866) (“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace . . . under all circumstances.”). We are mindful that deference to the political branches is particularly appropriate with respect to national security and foreign affairs, given the relative institutional capacity, informational access, and expertise of the courts. See Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 33-34.
Nonetheless, “courts are not powerless to review the political branches’ actions” with respect to matters of national security. Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532, 559 n.17 (9th Cir. 2005). To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 34 (quoting id. at 61 (Breyer, J., dissenting)); see also United States v. Robel , 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967) (“‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965) (“[S]imply because a statute deals with foreign relations [does not mean that] it can grant the Executive totally unrestricted freedom of choice.”).
Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of—and even invalidate—actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict. See, e.g., Boumediene, 553 U.S. 723 (striking down a federal statute purporting to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by non-citizens being held as “enemy combatants” after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere and accused of authorizing, planning, committing, or aiding the terrorist attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001); Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) (holding unconstitutional a statute denying passports to American members of the Communist Party despite national security concerns); Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) (holding unconstitutional the detention of a law-abiding and loyal American of Japanese ancestry during World War II and affirming federal court jurisdiction over habeas petitions by such individuals). As a plurality of the Supreme Court cautioned in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), “Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.” Id. at 536 (plurality opinion).
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
Legal Standard
The Government moves to stay the district court’s order pending this appeal. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). “It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. (quoting Virginian, 272 U.S. at 672-73) (alterations omitted) . “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433-34.
Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock , 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). “The first two factors . . . are the most critical,” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, and the last two steps are reached “[o]nce an applicant satisfies the first two factors,” id. at 435. We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay. We emphasize, however, that our analysis is a preliminary one. We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest.
The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims.
Likelihood of Success—Due Process
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing “notice and an opportunity to respond,” or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered. United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir. 2014); accord Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985); ASSE Int’l, Inc. v. Kerry, 803 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015).
The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.
In the district court, the States argued that the Executive Order violates the procedural due process rights of various aliens in at least three independent ways. First, section 3(c) denies re-entry to certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders without constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond. Second, section 3(c) prohibits certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders from exercising their separate and independent constitutionally protected liberty interests in travelling abroad and thereafter re- entering the United States. Third, section 5 contravenes the procedures provided by federal statute for refugees seeking asylum and related relief in the United States. The district court held generally in the TRO that the States were likely to prevail on the merits of their due process claims, without discussing or offering analysis as to any specific alleged violation.
At this stage of the proceedings, it is the Government’s burden to make “a strong showing that [it] is likely to” prevail against the States’ procedural due process claims. Lair v. Bullock , 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). We are not persuaded that the Government has carried its burden for a stay pending appeal.
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (“[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”).
The Government has argued that, even if lawful permanent residents have due process rights, the States’ challenge to section 3(c) based on its application to lawful permanent residents is moot because several days after the Executive Order was issued, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II issued “[a]uthoritative [g]uidance” stating that sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.
Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings. On this record, therefore, we cannot conclude that the Government has shown that it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added).
Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33- 34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order. Indeed, the existence of such persons is obvious.
The Government argues that, even if the States have shown that they will likely succeed on some of their procedural due process claims, the district court nevertheless erred by issuing an “overbroad” TRO. Specifically, the Government argues that the TRO is overbroad in two independent respects: (1) the TRO extends beyond lawful permanent residents, and covers aliens who cannot assert cognizable liberty interests in connection with travelling into and out of the United States, and (2) the TRO applies nationwide, and enjoins application of the Executive Order outside Washington and Minnesota. We decline to modify the scope of the TRO in either respect.
First, we decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (six Justices declining to adopt a rule that would categorically bar U.S. citizens from asserting cognizable liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses). There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government’s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do.

Second, we decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) . At this stage of the litigation, we do not need to and do not reach such a legal conclusion for ourselves, but we cannot say that the Government has established that a contrary view is likely to prevail. Moreover, even if limiting the geographic scope of the injunction would be desirable, the Government has not proposed a workable alternative form of the TRO that accounts for the nation’s multiple ports of entry and interconnected transit system and that would protect the proprietary interests of the States at issue here while nevertheless applying only within the States’ borders.
More generally, even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects, it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order. See United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 479 (1995) (declining to rewrite a statute to eliminate constitutional defects); cf. Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 516 (1964) (invalidating a restriction on freedom of travel despite the existence of constitutional applications). The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions. For now, it is enough for us to conclude that the Government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal.
Likelihood of Success—Religious Discrimination
The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. A law that has a religious, not secular, purpose violates that clause, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971), as does one that “officially prefer[s] [one religious denomination] over another,” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The Supreme Court has explained that this is because endorsement of a religion “sends the ancillary message to . . . nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe , 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). The Equal Protection Clause likewise prohibits the Government from impermissibly discriminating among persons based on religion. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 50 (9th Cir. 1978).
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).
The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest
The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.7 Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.8 We disagree, as explained above.
To the extent that the Government claims that it has suffered an institutional injury by erosion of the separation of powers, that injury is not “irreparable.” It may yet pursue and vindicate its interests in the full course of this litigation.
See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 767- 68 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[I]t is the resolution of the case on the merits, not whether the injunction is stayed pending appeal, that will affect those principles.”).
By contrast, the States have offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple “other parties interested in the proceeding.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976))).
The Government suggests that the Executive Order’s discretionary waiver provisions are a sufficient safety valve for those who would suffer unnecessarily, but it has offered no explanation for how these provisions would function in practice: how would the “national interest” be determined, who would make that determination, and when? Moreover, as we have explained above, the Government has not otherwise explained how the Executive Order could realistically be administered only in parts such that the injuries listed above would be avoided.
Finally, in evaluating the need for a stay, we must consider the public interest generally. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from
discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

Full Text Political Transcripts February 9, 2017: Documents President Donald Trump Travel Ban Case State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

 

17-35105


Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to provide access to case information.

Date Document Title
02/09/2017 Published Order Denying Stay
02/09/2017 Unpublished Procedural Order
02/09/2017 Appellees’ Notice of filing additional evidence in district court
02/09/2017 Daniel Escamilla Amicus Motion
02/09/2017 Daniel Escamilla Amicus Brief
02/09/2017 Redfin Corporation Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/08/2017 MongoDB, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/08/2017 DiCentral Corporation Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Listen to audio recording of Oral Arguments
02/07/2017 GoDaddy, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 OneLogin, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Technology Start-Ups Joinder to Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Medidata Solutions, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Participating Law Firms of the Employment Law Alliance Amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Order re CNN live stream and recording of oral argument
02/07/2017 David Golden Motion to Intervene
02/07/2017 SpotHero, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and District of Columbia, Amended Amicus Motion and Brief
02/07/2017 SoundCloud, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Molecule Software, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Fitbit, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Postmates Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 District court scheduling order on preliminary injunction
02/07/2017 Day sheet: Party and Counsel Listing for Telephonic Hearing
02/07/2017 Akamai Technologies, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 CREDO Mobile, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Quantcast Corp. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/06/2016 American Immigration Council Exhibits
02/06/2016 American Immigration Council Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2016 Jewish Federation Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Link to oral argument live stream
02/06/2017 Order clarifying live streaming oral argument
02/06/2016 Freedom Watch Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Order re live streaming argument
02/06/2017 Freedom Watch Amicus Brief
02/06/2017 Muslim Advocates Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Motion for Extension of Time
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Groupon Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Reply In Support of Emergency Motion for Stay
02/06/2017 Washington State Labor Council Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Additional Law Professors Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 National Immigrant Justice Center and ASISTA Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Letter by Additional Technology Companies Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 American Center for Law and Justice Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Pivotal Software Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 SEIU Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 HIAS, Inc. Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Law Professors Motion to Substitute Corrected Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Amicus Brief
02/06/2017 Constitutional Scholars Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Order denying motion to intervene and setting oral argument
02/06/2017 Reply in support of emergency motion for stay
02/06/2017 Exhibits to response
02/06/2017 Exhibit A to response
02/06/2017 Response to emergency motion for stay
02/06/2017 HIAS amicus brief
02/06/2017 Americans United for Separation of Church and State amicus motion and brief
02/06/2017 ACLU amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 Law Professors amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 State of Hawaii Emergency motion to intervene and Exhibits
02/05/2017 Korematsu Center amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017  Revised scheduling order
02/04/2017 Order denying immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for stay and setting schedule
02/04/2017 Emergency motion for stay
02/04/2017 Video Video recording of hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
02/03/2017 Order Temporary Restraining Order

Full Text Obama Presidency June 26, 2015: President Barack Obama’s Remarks after the Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage legal in all 50 States Transcript

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President on the Supreme Court Decision on Marriage Equality

Source: WH, 6-26-15

Rose Garden

11:14 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Our nation was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal.  The project of each generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding words with the realities of changing times — a never-ending quest to ensure those words ring true for every single American.

Progress on this journey often comes in small increments, sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens.  And then sometimes, there are days like this when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.

This morning, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution guarantees marriage equality.  In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law.  That all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love.

This decision will end the patchwork system we currently have.  It will end the uncertainty hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples face from not knowing whether their marriage, legitimate in the eyes of one state, will remain if they decide to move [to] or even visit another.  This ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land.

In my second inaugural address, I said that if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.  It is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by this decision.

This ruling is a victory for Jim Obergefell and the other plaintiffs in the case.  It’s a victory for gay and lesbian couples who have fought so long for their basic civil rights.  It’s a victory for their children, whose families will now be recognized as equal to any other.  It’s a victory for the allies and friends and supporters who spent years, even decades, working and praying for change to come.

And this ruling is a victory for America.  This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts:  When all Americans are treated as equal we are all more free.

My administration has been guided by that idea.  It’s why we stopped defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and why we were pleased when the Court finally struck down a central provision of that discriminatory law.  It’s why we ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  From extending full marital benefits to federal employees and their spouses, to expanding hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and their loved ones, we’ve made real progress in advancing equality for LGBT Americans in ways that were unimaginable not too long ago.

I know change for many of our LGBT brothers and sisters must have seemed so slow for so long.  But compared to so many other issues, America’s shift has been so quick.  I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs.  All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact; recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.

But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple, often painfully, real change is possible. Shifts in hearts and minds is possible.  And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them.  Because for all our differences, we are one people, stronger together than we could ever be alone.  That’s always been our story.

We are big and vast and diverse; a nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love, America is a place where you can write your own destiny.
We are a people who believe that every single child is entitled to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There’s so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of America to every American.  But today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we’ve made our union a little more perfect.

That’s the consequence of a decision from the Supreme Court, but, more importantly, it is a consequence of the countless small acts of courage of millions of people across decades who stood up, who came out, who talked to parents — parents who loved their children no matter what.  Folks who were willing to endure bullying and taunts, and stayed strong, and came to believe in themselves and who they were, and slowly made an entire country realize that love is love.

What an extraordinary achievement.  What a vindication of the belief that ordinary people can do extraordinary things.  What a reminder of what Bobby Kennedy once said about how small actions can be like pebbles being thrown into a still lake, and ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world.

Those countless, often anonymous heroes — they deserve our thanks.  They should be very proud.  America should be very proud.

Thank you.  (Applause.)

END
11:22 A.M. EDT

Full Text Political Transcripts April 29, 2015: Hillary Clinton’s speech on criminal justice reform response to Baltimore Riots at Columbia University

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Hillary Clinton’s speech on criminal justice reform

Source: Vox, 4-29-15

Thank you so much. I am absolutely delighted to be back here at Columbia. I want to thank President Bollinger, Dean Janow, and everyone at the School of International and Public Affairs. It is a special treat to be here with and on behalf of a great leader of this city and our country, David Dinkins. He has made such an indelible impact on New York, and I had the great privilege of working with him as First Lady and then, of course, as a new senator.

When I was just starting out as a senator, David’s door was always open. He and his wonderful wife Joyce were great friends and supporters and good sounding boards about ideas that we wanted to consider to enhance the quality of life and the opportunities for the people of this city. I was pleased to address the Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum in my first year as a senator, and I so appreciated then as I have in the years since David’s generosity with his time and most of all his wisdom. So 14 years later, I’m honored to have this chance, once again, to help celebrate the legacy of one of New York’s greatest public servants.

I’m pleased too that you will have the opportunity after my remarks to hear from such a distinguished panel, to go into more detail about some of the issues that we face. I also know that Manhattan Borough President Gail Brewer is here, along with other local and community leaders.

Because surely this is a time when our collective efforts to devise approaches to the problems that still afflict us is more important than ever. Indeed, it is a time for wisdom.

For yet again, the family of a young black man is grieving a life cut short.

Yet again, the streets of an American city are marred by violence. By shattered glass and shouts of anger and shows of force.

Yet again a community is reeling, its fault lines laid bare and its bonds of trust and respect frayed.

Yet again, brave police officers have been attacked in the line of duty.

What we’ve seen in Baltimore should, indeed does, tear at our soul.

And, from Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable.

Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed. In debt. And terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn’t afford.

Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio. Unarmed and just 12 years old.

Eric Garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of this city.

And now Freddie Gray. His spine nearly severed while in police custody.

Not only as a mother and a grandmother but as a citizen, a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families.

We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.

There is something profoundly wrong when African American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts.

There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes. And an estimated 1.5 million black men are “missing” from their families and communities because of incarceration and premature death.

There is something wrong when more than one out of every three young black men in Baltimore can’t find a job.

There is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down as far as it has in many of our communities.

We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance. And these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again.

We should begin by heeding the pleas of Freddie Gray’s family for peace and unity, echoing the families of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and others in the past years.

Those who are instigating further violence in Baltimore are disrespecting the Gray family and the entire community. They are compounding the tragedy of Freddie Gray’s death and setting back the cause of justice. So the violence has to stop.

But more broadly, let’s remember that everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by the law. That is what we have to work towards in Baltimore and across our country.

We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society.

Restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets. Between and among neighbors and even people with whom we disagree politically.

This is so fundamental to who we are as a nation and everything we want to achieve together.

It truly is about how we treat each other and what we value. Making it possible for every American to reach his or her God-given potential—regardless of who you are, where you were born, or who you love.

The inequities that persist in our justice system undermine this shared vision of what America can be and should be.

I learned this firsthand as a young attorney just out of law school—at one of those law schools that will remain nameless here at Columbia. One of my earliest jobs for the Children’s Defense Fund, which David had mentioned—I was so fortunate to work with Marian Wright Edelman as a young lawyer and then serving on the board of the Children’s Defense Fund—was studying the problem then of youth, teenagers, sometimes preteens, incarcerated in adult jails. Then, as director of the University of Arkansas School of Law’s legal aid clinic, I advocated on behalf of prison inmates and poor families.

I saw repeatedly how our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable.

I saw how families could be and were torn apart by excessive incarceration. I saw the toll on children growing up in homes shattered by poverty and prison.

So, unfortunately, I know these are not new challenges by any means.

In fact they have become even more complex and urgent over time. And today they demand fresh thinking and bold action from all of us.

Today there seems to be a growing bipartisan movement for commonsense reforms in our criminal justice systems. Senators as disparate on the political spectrum as Cory Booker and Rand Paul and Dick Durbin and Mike Lee are reaching across the aisle to find ways to work together. It is rare to see Democrats and Republicans agree on anything today. But we’re beginning to agreeing on this: We need to restore balance to our criminal justice system.

Now of course it is not enough just to agree and give speeches about it—we actually have to work together to get the job done.

We need to deliver real reforms that can be felt on our streets, in our courthouses, and our jails and prisons, in communities too long neglected.

Let me touch on two areas in particular where I believe we need to push for more progress.

First, we need smart strategies to fight crime that help restore trust between law enforcement and our communities, especially communities of color.

There’s a lot of good work to build on. Across the country, there are so many police officers out there every day inspiring trust and confidence, honorably doing their duty, putting themselves on the line to save lives. There are police departments already deploying creative and effective strategies, demonstrating how we can protect the public without resorting to unnecessary force. We need to learn from those examples, build on what works.

We can start by making sure that federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices, rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets.

President Obama’s task force on policing gives us a good place to start. Its recommendations offer a roadmap for reform, from training to technology, guided by more and better data.

We should make sure every police department in the country has body cameras to record interactions between officers on patrol and suspects.

That will improve transparency and accountability, it will help protect good people on both sides of the lens. For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more that remained invisible. Not every problem can be or will be prevented with cameras, but this is a commonsense step we should take.

The President has provided the idea of matching funds to state and local governments investing in body cameras. We should go even further and make this the norm everywhere.

And we should listen to law enforcement leaders who are calling for a renewed focus on working with communities to prevent crime, rather than measuring success just by the number of arrests or convictions.

As your Senator from New York, I supported a greater emphasis on community policing, along with putting more officers on the street to get to know those communities.

David Dinkins was an early pioneer of this policy. His leadership helped lay the foundation for dramatic drops in crime in the years that followed.

And today smart policing in communities that builds relationships, partnerships, and trust makes more sense than ever.

And it shouldn’t be limited just to officers on the beat. It’s an ethic that should extend throughout our criminal justice system. To prosecutors and parole officers. To judges and lawmakers.

We all share a responsibility to help re-stitch the fabric of our neighborhoods and communities.

We also have to be honest about the gaps that exist across our country, the inequality that stalks our streets. Because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice system if you also don’t talk about what’s needed to provide economic opportunity, better educational chances for young people, more support to families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own children.

Today I saw an article on the front page of USA Today that really struck me, written by a journalist who lives in Baltimore. And here’s what I read three times to make sure I was reading correctly: “At a conference in 2013 at Johns Hopkins University, Vice Provost Jonathan Bagger pointed out that only six miles separate the Baltimore neighborhoods of Roland Park and Hollins Market.

But there is a 20-year difference in the average life expectancy.” We have learned in the last few years that life expectancy, which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries, manifests the same inequality that we see in so many other parts of our society.

Women—white women without high school education—are losing life expectancy. Black men and black women are seeing their life expectancy goes down in so many parts of our country.

This may not grab headlines, although I was glad to see it on the front page of USA Today. But it tells us more than I think we can bear about what we are up against.

We need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though that child were our own.

David and I started our conversation this morning talking about our grandchildren; now his are considerably older than mine. But it was not just two longtime friends catching up with each other. It was so clearly sharing what is most important to us, as it is to families everywhere in our country.

So I don’t want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing, to be siloed and to permit discussions and arguments and debates about it to only talk about that. The conversation needs to be much broader. Because that is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails us today.

The second area where we need to chart a new course is how we approach punishment and prison.

It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.

Of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders: people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes, or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts.

Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime. But it is does a lot to tear apart families and communities.

One in every 28 children now has a parent in prison. Think about what that means for those children.

When we talk about one and a half million missing African American men, we’re talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers.

They’re not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck. And the consequences are profound.

Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty.

And it’s not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment.

And for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison.

The price of incarcerating a single inmate is often more than $30,000 per year—and up to $60,000 in some states. That’s the salary of a teacher or police officer.

One year in a New Jersey state prison costs $44,000—more than the annual tuition at Princeton.

If the United States brought our correctional expenditures back in line with where they were several decades ago, we’d save an estimated $28 billion a year. And I believe we would not be less safe. You can pay a lot of police officers and nurses and others with $28 billion to help us deal with the pipeline issues.

It’s time to change our approach. It’s time to end the era of mass incarceration. We need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe.

I don’t know all the answers. That’s why I’m here—to ask all the smart people in Columbia and New York to start thinking this through with me. I know we should work together to pursue together to pursue alternative punishments for low-level offenders. They do have to be in some way registered in the criminal justice system, but we don’t want that to be a fast track to long-term criminal activity, we don’t want to create another “incarceration generation.”

I’ve been encouraged to see changes that I supported as Senator to reduce the unjust federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes finally become law.

And last year, the Sentencing Commission reduced recommended prison terms for some drug crimes.

President Obama and former Attorney General Holder have led the way with important additional steps. And I am looking forward to our new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, carrying this work forward.

There are other measures that I and so many others have championed to reform arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences are long overdue.

We also need probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations, while allowing low-level offenders who stay clean and stay out of trouble to stay out of prison. I’ve seen the positive effects of specialized drug courts and juvenile programs work to the betterment of individuals and communities. And please, please, let us put mental health back at the top of our national agenda.

You and I know that the promise of de-institutionalizing those in mental health facilities was supposed to be followed by the creation of community-based treatment centers. Well, we got half of that equation—but not the other half. Our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions.

I have to tell you I was somewhat surprised in both Iowa and New Hampshire to be asked so many questions about mental health. “What are we going to do with people who need help for substance abuse or mental illness?” “What are we going to do when the remaining facilities are being shut down for budget reasons?” “What are we going to do when hospitals don’t really get reimbursed for providing the kind of emergency care that is needed for mental health patients?”

It’s not just a problem in our cities. There’s a quiet epidemic of substance abuse sweeping small-town and rural America as well. We have to do more and finally get serious about treatment.

I’ll be talking about all of this in the months to come, offering new solutions to protect and strengthen our families and communities.

I know in a time when we’re afflicted by short-termism, we’re not looking over the horizon for the investments that we need to make in our fellow citizens, in our children. So I’m well aware that progress will not be easy, despite the emerging bipartisan consensus for certain reforms. And that we will have to overcome deep divisions and try to begin to replenish our depleted reservoirs of trust.

But I am convinced, as the congenital optimist I must be to live my life, that we can rise to this challenge. We can heal our wounds. We can restore balance to our justice system and respect in our communities. And we can make sure that we take actions that are going to make a difference in the lives of those who for too long have been marginalized and forgotten.

Let’s protect the rights of all our people. Let’s take on the broader inequities in our society. You can’t separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods.

Despite all the progress we’ve made in this country lifting people up—and it has been extraordinary—too many of our fellow citizens are still left out.

Twenty-five years ago, in his inaugural address as Mayor, David Dinkins warned of leaving “too many lost amidst the wealth and grandeur that surrounds us.”

Today, his words and the emotion behind them ring truer than ever. You don’t have to look too far from this magnificent hall to find children still living in poverty or trapped in failing schools. Families who work hard but can’t afford the rising prices in their neighborhood.

Mothers and fathers who fear for their sons’ safety when they go off to school—or just to go buy a pack of Skittles.

These challenges are all woven together. And they all must be tackled together.

Our goal must truly be inclusive and lasting prosperity that’s measured by how many families get ahead and stay ahead…

How many children climb out of poverty and stay out of prison…

How many young people can go to college without breaking the bank…

How many new immigrants can start small businesses …

How many parents can get good jobs that allow them to balance the demands of work and family.

That’s how we should measure prosperity. With all due respect, that is a far better measurement than the size of the bonuses handed out in downtown office buildings.

Now even in the most painful times like those we are seeing in Baltimore …

When parents fear for their children…

When smoke fills the skies above our cities…

When police officers are assaulted…

Even then—especially then—let’s remember the aspirations and values that unite us all: That every person should have the opportunity to succeed. That no one is disposable. That every life matters.

So yes, Mayor Dinkins. This is a time for wisdom.

A time for honesty about race and justice in America.

And, yes, a time for reform.

David Dinkins is a leader we can look to. We know what he stood for. Let us take the challenge and example he presents and think about what we must do to make sure that this country we love—this city we live in—are both good and great.

And please join me in saying a prayer for the family of Freddie Gray, and all the men whose names we know and those we don’t who have lost their lives unnecessarily and tragically. And in particular today, include in that prayer the people of Baltimore and our beloved country.

Thank you all very much.

Political Musings February 17, 2015: Federal judge blocks Obama’s immigration executive actions at 26 states’ request

POLITICAL MUSINGS

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/pol_musings.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Federal judge blocks Obama’s immigration executive actions at 26 states’ request

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Congressional Republicans might not need to defund the Department of Homeland Security to prevent President Barack Obama immigration executive actions, a Texas federal judge has granted the requests of 26 states to block those executive actions with a temporary injunction…READ MORE

Political Musings October 3, 2014: Is Texas Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan a terrorist, criminal or victim?

POLITICAL MUSINGS

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/pol_musings.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

OP-EDS & ARTICLES

Is Texas Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan a terrorist, criminal or victim?

By Bonnie K. Goodman

After the Center for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed the first case of Ebola on United States soil on Tuesday evening, Sept. 30, 2014, slowly the picture is getting clearer about the circumstance around the case and the dangers it poses…READ MORE

Political Headlines November 18, 2013: Senate Republicans block Obama’s third Appeals Court nomination

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Obama Pick for Court Is 3rd in a Row Blocked by Republicans

Source: NYT, 11-18-13

Robert L. Wilkins, left, with President Obama and other nominees in June, was picked to fill one of three vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press

Robert L. Wilkins, left, with President Obama and other nominees in June, was picked to fill one of three vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In blocking Judge Robert L. Wilkins’s nomination, Senate Republicans on Monday denied President Obama his third pick in recent weeks to fill a vacancy on the nation’s most powerful and prestigious appeals court….READ MORE

Full Text Obama Presidency July 19, 2013: President Barack Obama’s Speech on the Trayvon Martin Verdict

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin

Source: WH, 7- 19-13

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:33 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session.  The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there’s going to obviously be a whole range of issues — immigration, economics, et cetera — we’ll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week — the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling.  I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday.  But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation.  I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case — I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.  The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner.  The prosecution and the defense made their arguments.  The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict.  And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works.  But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son.  Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.  And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store.  That includes me.  There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.  That happens to me — at least before I was a senator.  There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.  That happens often.

And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.  And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.  The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws.  And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence.  It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.  They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration.  And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.  So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys.  But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this?  How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?  I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent.  If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.  But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here.  Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code.  And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that I think would be productive.  So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things.  One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped.  But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law.  And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive.  And I think a lot of them would be.  And let’s figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the “stand your ground” laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.  On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?  And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?  And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three — and this is a long-term project — we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys.  And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about.  There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement.  And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I’m not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program.  I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I’ve got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front.  And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed — I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation.  And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.  There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race.  I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations.  They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.  On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can?  Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character?  That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better.  Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race.  It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society.  It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated.  But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they’re better than we are — they’re better than we were — on these issues.  And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.

And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues.  And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions.  But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we’re becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

Thank you, guys.

END
1:52 P.M. EDT

Legal Buzz June 25, 2013: Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, ruling that the formula used to enforce the nearly 50-year-old civil rights law needs to be updated.

In a 5-4 decision the court said that the coverage formula used by the government to determine which states are required to get federal permission before they make any changes to voting laws is unconstitutional. The ruling effectively puts the issue back in the hands of lawmakers to revise the law. And until then, the ruling effectively renders section five of the Voting Rights Act inoperable….READ MORE

Political Headlines June 24, 2013: President Barack Obama on Edward Snowden: US Following ‘Appropriate Legal Channels’

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Obama on Snowden: US Following ‘Appropriate Legal Channels’

Source: ABC News Radio, 6-24-13

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

President Obama on Monday said the U.S. is following the appropriate legal channels in the case of fugitive NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, whom the White House believes is in Moscow….READ MORE

Q    — Putin, and are you confident that they’ll expel
— he’ll be expelled?

THE PRESIDENT:  What we know is, is that we’re following all of the appropriate legal channels, and working with various other countries to make sure that rule of law is observed.  And beyond that, I’ll refer to the Justice Department that has been actively involved in the case.

Legal Buzz June 18, 2013: Google challenges US gag order, citing First Amendment

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS

Google challenges US gag order, citing First Amendment

Source: Washington Post, 6-18-13

Google asked the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Tuesday to ease long-standing gag orders over data requests it makes, arguing that the company has a constitutional right to speak about information it’s forced to give the government….READ MORE

Political Headlines June 4, 2013: President Barack Obama Names 3 to Washington DC Appeals Court in Challenge to Republicans

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Obama Names 3 to Top Appeals Court in Challenge to Republicans

Source: NYT, 6-4-13

President Barack Obama nominated, from left, Robert L. Wilkins,  Cornelia T.L. Pillard and Patricia Ann Millett, to fill the three open spots on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday. 

Christopher Gregory/The New York Times

President Barack Obama nominated, from left, Robert L. Wilkins,  Cornelia T.L. Pillard and Patricia Ann Millett, to fill the three open spots on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday.

President Obama plans to nominate three people to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, setting up a potential legislative collision….READ MORE

Full Text Obama Presidency June 4, 2013: President Barack Obama’s Speech Announcing Three Nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington District of Columbia Circuit

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

President Obama Announces Three Nominees for the D.C. Circuit Court

Source: WH, 6-4-13

President Barack Obama delivers a statement announcing the nomination of three candidates for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitPresident Barack Obama delivers a statement announcing the nomination of three candidates for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 4, 2013. Nominees from left are: Robert Leon Wilkins, Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, and Patricia Ann Millett. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Today, President Obama announced that he is nominating three candidates for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins.

As the President explained, one of his most important responsibilities is nominating qualified men and women to serve as judges on the federal bench. And the Senate has a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation….READ MORE

Remarks by the President on the Nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Source: WH, 5-4-13 

Rose Garden

10:28 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  Please have a seat.

So one of the most important responsibilities of a President is to nominate qualified men and women to serve as judges on the federal bench.

And Congress has a responsibility, as well.  The Senate is tasked with providing advice and consent.  They can approve a President’s nominee or they can reject a President’s nominee.  But they have a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation.
Now, throughout my first term as President, the Senate too often failed to do that.  Time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay and even block qualified nominees from coming to a full vote.

As a result, my judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor.  Let me repeat that:  My nominees have taken three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor.  These individuals that I nominate are qualified.  When they were given an up or down vote in the Senate — when they were finally given an up or down vote in the Senate, every one of them was confirmed.  So this is not about principled opposition.  This is about political obstruction.

I recognize that neither party has a perfect track record here.  Democrats weren’t completely blameless when I was in the Senate.  But what’s happening now is unprecedented.  For the good of the American people, it has to stop.  Too much of the people’s business is at stake.  Our legal framework depends on timely confirmations of judicial nominees.  And nowhere is this more apparent than with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The D.C. Circuit is known as the second highest court in the country, and there’s a good reason for that.  The judges on the D.C. Circuit routinely have the final say on a broad range of cases involving everything from national security to environmental policy; from questions of campaign finance to workers’ rights.  In other words, the court’s decisions impact almost every aspect of our lives.

There are 11 seats on the D.C. Circuit Court.  When I first took office, there were two vacancies.  Since then, two more judges have retired.  That means there are four vacancies that needed to be filled.  And by February of this year, more than one-third of the seats on the nation’s second highest court were empty.  I mean, imagine if a third of the seats on the highest court — the Supreme Court — were empty.  We would rightly consider that a judicial crisis.  If we want to ensure a fair and functioning judiciary, our courts cannot be short-staffed.

In 2010, I put forward a highly qualified nominee for the D.C. Circuit — Caitlin Halligan.  Caitlin’s credentials were beyond question.  She had bipartisan support from the legal and law enforcement communities.  She had the support of a majority of senators.  Nobody suggested she was not qualified to serve on the court.  If Caitlin had gotten a simple up or down vote before the full Senate, I am confident she would have been easily confirmed.  But instead, for two and a half years, Senate Republicans blocked her nominations.  It had nothing to do with Caitlin’s qualifications.  It was all about politics.  And after two and a half years of languishing in limbo, this brilliant and principled lawyer asked me to withdraw her nomination.

Now, the good news is last year I put forward another highly qualified nominee — Sri Srinivasan.  And Sri’s credentials were also beyond question.  And no doubt due to some mounting public pressure, along with the vocal bipartisan support that he received, Sri was unanimously confirmed a few weeks ago, becoming the first South Asian American to serve as a circuit court judge in our nation’s history.

So I’m pleased that the Senate acted.  I’m glad Republicans chose not to play politics and obstruct Sri’s nomination the way they did with Caitlin’s.  And I’m hopeful that we can now build on that progress, because Sri’s confirmation was the first to the D.C. Circuit in seven years.  So out of the four vacancies that existed, one has now been filled.  There are three seats still vacant on the D.C. Circuit Court — one of them, by the way — one of them has been vacant since Chief Justice Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2005.  Anybody who values the role of our courts should find that unacceptable regardless of your party.  Which brings me to today.  That’s why today I’m nominating three outstanding, highly qualified individuals to fill those remaining seats.

Now Patricia Millett is one of our nation’s finest appellate attorneys and, until recently, held the record for the most Supreme Court arguments by a female lawyer.  She served in the Solicitor General’s Office for 11 years, for both Democratic and Republican Presidents.  Since then, in private practice, she’s represented everyone from large businesses to individual pro bono plaintiffs.  And, by the way, as the wife of a retired Navy officer, Patricia has served our nation outside the courtroom as well, as a member of a military family.

Nina Pillard’s career has been defined by an unshakeable commitment to the public good.  She twice served in the Department of Justice and was an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.  Her landmark successes before the Supreme Court include defending the constitutionality of the Family and Medical Leave Act and opening the doors of the Virginia Military Institute to female students.  And, today, Nina is a professor at Georgetown and, if confirmed, would continue the D.C. Circuit’s strong tradition of distinguished scholars going on to serve as judges — from Antonin Scalia to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

And finally, this is the second time I’ve called on Judge Robert Wilkins to serve — because in 2010, I nominated Robert to the D.C. District Court, and the Senate confirmed him without opposition.  Before serving with distinction as a federal judge, Robert spent eight years in private practice and a decade as a public defender here in Washington, D.C., providing legal representation to defendants who could not afford an attorney.  And throughout his career, Robert has distinguished himself as a principled attorney of the utmost integrity.

So these three individuals are highly qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit.  They have broad bipartisan support from across the legal community.  The non-partisan American Bar Association have given them — each of them — its highest rating.  These are no slouches.  (Laughter.)  These are no hacks.  There are incredibly accomplished lawyers by all accounts.  And there are members of Congress here today who are ready to move forward with these nominations, including the Chairman, Patrick Leahy.  So there’s no reason — aside from politics — for Republicans to block these individuals from getting an up or down vote.

Despite that, some Republicans recently have suggested that by nominating these three individuals, I’m somehow engaging in — and I’m quoting here — in “court-packing.”  (Laughter.)  No — people laugh, but this is an argument I’ve made.  For those of you who are familiar with the history of court-packing, that involved Franklin Delano Roosevelt trying to add additional seats to the Supreme Court in order to water down and get more support for his political agenda.  We’re not adding seats here.  We’re trying to fill seats that are already existing.  Each of the past five Presidents has seen at least three of their nominees confirmed to the D.C. Circuit.  Since I’ve been President, obstruction has slowed that down to one.

Right now, there are three open seats on a critical court.  I didn’t create these seats.  I didn’t just wake up one day and say, let’s add three seats to the District Court of Appeals.  These are open seats.  And the Constitution demands that I nominate qualified individuals to fill those seats.  What I am doing today is my job.  I need the Senate to do its job.

The fact that Republican senators are now pushing a proposal to reduce the number of judges on this independent federal court also makes no sense.  When a Republican was President, 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit Court made complete sense.  Now that a Democrat is President, it apparently doesn’t.  Eight is suddenly enough.  (Laughter.)  People are laughing because it’s obviously a blatant political move.

We know that because some of the same Republicans behind this current proposal to reduce the number of seats on the D.C. Circuit Court voted in 2007 to keep 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit — same folks.  They say the workload has decreased since then, but in April, the judicial conference of the United States — which, by the way, is led by Chief Justice John Roberts and includes judges from various levels of the federal court system — told the Senate that the current workload before the D.C. Circuit requires 11 judges.  So they should know.  That was just two months ago.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the highest court in the land, and former member of the D.C. Circuit Court says they need 11 judges.  So it’s important we don’t play games here, and it’s important that we cut through the verbiage.

An essential part of our democracy is the separation of powers.  The executive, the legislative, and the judiciary each have a role to play.  And when it comes to judicial nominees, my responsibility is to put forward qualified individuals.  These are three of the most qualified individuals you’ll ever meet.  The Senate’s responsibility, in turn, is to promptly give them an up or down vote.

So today, I’m doing my part.  I hope in the coming months that the Senate does its part, because I assure you, when these three outstanding individuals are on the bench, they will do their part.  That’s what the Constitution demands.  It’s what the American people expect.  And I look forward to years of outstanding service by these outstanding lawyers of incredible integrity.

And I promised that I would mention this before all of you — they also have really good-looking families.  (Laughter.)  Because I just saw their kids, and — (applause).  All right.  Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)

END
10:43 A.M. EDT

Legal Buzz June 3, 2013: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Minor Intrusion’ of Arrestee DNA Swabs

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Supreme Court Upholds ‘Minor Intrusion’ of Arrestee DNA Swabs

Source: ABC News Radio, 6-3-13

6/03/13 12-207 Maryland v. King K 569/2

The Supreme Court Monday upheld a Maryland law that allows officials to take DNA without a warrant from those who have been arrested, but not convicted of a serious crime.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, for a 5-4 majority, wrote, “the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure.”…READ MORE

Full Text Legal Buzz March 27, 2013: Supreme Court of the United States Oral Arguments for Defense of Marriage Act Case United States v. Windsor Audio & Transcript

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

United States v. Windsor Oral Arguments

Source: SCOTUS, 3-27-13

Docket Number: 12-307

Date Argued: 03/27/13
Play Audio:

Media Formats:

mp3  MP3

Download

Play

Windows Media  Windows Media

Download

Play

RealAudio  RealAudio 10

Download

PDF Transcript (PDF)

View

 

Background Information

No. 12-307   
Vide 12-63   
Title:    
United States, Petitioner
v.
Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Docketed:    September 11, 2012
Lower Ct:    United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  Case Nos.:    (12-2335, 12-2435)
  Decision Date:    October 18, 2012
    Rule 11
Questions Presented …READ MORE

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 11 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due October 11, 2012)
Sep 18 2012 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 19, 2012, for all respondents.
Oct 10 2012 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer in opposition filed.
Oct 18 2012 Judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 19 2012 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in opposition filed.
Oct 26 2012 Supplemental brief of petitioner United States filed.
Oct 29 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.
Oct 29 2012 Supplemental brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer filed. (Distributed)
Nov 1 2012 Supplemental brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Nov 8 2012 Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)
Nov 13 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.
Dec 3 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.
Dec 7 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch�s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.
Dec 11 2012 Vicki C. Jackson, Esq., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the positions that the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case, and that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives lacks Article III standing in this case.
Dec 13 2012 Briefing proposal of the parties and Court-appointed amicus curiae filed.
Dec 14 2012 Upon consideration of the letter of December 13, 2012, from the Solicitor General on behalf of the litigants and the amicus curiae invited to brief and argue this case, the following briefing schedule is adopted. On the merits, the brief of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Tuesday, January 22, 2013. The brief of the Solicitor General, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Friday, February 22, 2013. The brief of Edith Windsor, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Tuesday, February 26, 2013. The reply brief of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, not to exceed 6,000 words, is to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court. On the jurisdictional questions, the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae, not to exceed 10,000 words, is to be filed on or before January 22, 2013. The briefs of the Solicitor General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, and Edith Windsor, not to exceed 10,000 words each, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, February 20, 2013. Reply briefs of the litigants and the Court-appointed amicus curiae, not to exceed 4,000 words, are to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court.
Dec 14 2012 Other amici curiae briefs shall be filed within the time allowed under Rule 37.3(a) of the Rules of this Court, except that amici curiae briefs on the merits in support of the positions of the Solicitor General and/or Edith Windsor shall be filed within 7 days after the brief of the Solicitor General on the merits is filed. The litigants, Court-appointed amicus curiae, and other amici curiae shall indicate on the cover of each brief filed which issue or issues are addressed in that particular brief in addition to the information required by Rule 37.3 of the Rules of this Court.
Jan 2 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Jan 7 2013 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Jan 8 2013 The time to file the brief, on the jurisdictional questions, of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including January 24, 2013.
Jan 8 2013 The time to file the briefs, on the jurisdictional questions, of the Solicitor General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, and Edith Windsor, is extended to and including February 22, 2013.
Jan 10 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jan 22 2013 Joint appendix filed. (Distributed) (Statement of costs received.)
Jan 22 2013 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2013 CIRCULATED.
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Court-appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amici curiae of Law Professors (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Organization for Marriage (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Westboro Baptist Church in support of neither party (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty, Life and Law Foundation, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of International jurists and academics (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Declaration (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for the Protection of Marriage (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Robert P. George, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Indiana and 16 other states (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Counsel (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Catholic Answers, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Matthew B. O’Brien (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dovid Z. Schwartz (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of United States Senators Orrin G. Hatch, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Helen M. Alvare filed. (Merits) VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Social Science Professors (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle filed. ( Merits) (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of The Beverly LaHaye Institute, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 6 2013 Record from U.S.C.A. for 2nd Circuit is electronic.
Feb 13 2013 Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District of New York is electronic.
Feb 13 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of petitioner United States (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Motion for enlargement of time and divided argument filed by the parties and Court-appointed amici curiae.
Feb 26 2013 Brief amicus curiae of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LBGT Equality (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association) concerning the immutability of sexual orientation (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of 278 Employers and Organizations Representing Employers (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Utah Pride Center, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Professors Nan D. Hunter, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft in support of neither party (Jurisdiction) out of time.
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Political Science Professors filed. (Distributed).
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Sociological Association (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the States of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Equality Council, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Organization of American Historians, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Empire State Pride Agenda, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Former Federal Intelligence Officer (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of OutServe-SLDN Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Women’s Law Center, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family and Child Welfare Law Professors (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Anti-Defamation League, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Law Professors, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Gary J. Gates (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Dr. Donna E. Shalala, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Former Senior Justice Department Officials, et al. (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Former Senators Bill Bradley, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Partnership for New York City (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of 172 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles County Bar Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Honorable John K. Olson (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Historians, American Historical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Honorable John K. Olson (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Federalism Scholars (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Hon. Lawrence J. Korb, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Fair Administration of Taxes (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief of Former Federal Election Commission Officials (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 4 2013 Motion for enlargement of time and divided argument GRANTED and the time is to be divided as follows: on the jurisdiction issues, the Court-appointed amicus curiae is allotted 20 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 15 minutes, and respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is allotted 15 minutes. On the merits, respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is allotted 30 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 15 minutes, and respondent Windsor is allotted 15 minutes.
Mar 15 2013 Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft GRANTED.
Mar 19 2013 Reply of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 19 2013 Reply of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of Court-appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)

 

Full Text Legal Buzz March 26, 2013: Supreme Court of the United States Oral Arguments for Proposition 8 Case Hollingsworth v. Perry Audio & Transcript

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Hollingsworth v. Perry Oral Arguments

Source: SCOTUS, 3-26-13

Docket Number: 12-144

Date Argued: 03/26/13
Play Audio:

Media Formats:

mp3  MP3

Download

Play

Windows Media  Windows Media

Download

Play

RealAudio  RealAudio 10

Download

PDF Transcript (PDF)

View

Background Information


Title:    
Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners
v.
Kristin M. Perry, et al.
Docketed:    August 1, 2012
Linked with 12A688
Lower Ct:    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  Case Nos.:    (10-16696, 11-16577)
  Decision Date:    February 7, 2012
  Rehearing Denied:    June 5, 2012
Questions Presented  ….READ MORE

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 30 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2012)
Aug 2 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Perry, Stier, Katami, and Zarillo.
Aug 3 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com
Aug 10 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent City and County of San Francisco.
Aug 24 2012 Brief of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo in opposition filed.
Aug 24 2012 Brief of respondent City and County of San Francisco in opposition filed.
Aug 30 2012 Brief amici curiae of Judge Georg Ress, and The Marriage Law Foundation filed.
Aug 30 2012 Brief amici curiae of William N. Eskridge, Jr., et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the United States, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Declaration Alliance & United States Justice Foundation filed.
Sep 4 2012 Reply of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed.
Sep 5 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Oct 29 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.
Nov 13 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.
Dec 3 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.
Dec 7 2012 Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, �2 of the Constitution in this case.
Dec 12 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners
Dec 12 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent City and County of San Francisco.
Jan 7 2013 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Jan 7 2013 Application (12A688) for leave to file petitioners’ brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Jan 11 2013 Application (12A688) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Jan 18 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Perry, Steir, Katami, and Zarillo
Jan 18 2013 Record from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit is electronic.
Jan 21 2013 Brief amici curiae of Coalition of African American Pastors USA, et al.( 2nd REPRINT) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 22 2013 Joint appendix filed. (2 Volumes and Supplement). (Distributed) (Statement of costs filed)
Jan 22 2013 Brief of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2013 CIRCULATED.
Jan 23 2013 Brief amici curiae of David Benkof, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of History and Related Disciplines filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty, Life and Law Foundation, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Westboro Baptist Church in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Daniel N. Robinson, Ph.D. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of International Jurists and Academics (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Thomas More Law Center and Chuck Storey, Imperial County Clerk (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of thirty-seven scholars of federalism and judicial restraint filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of High Impact Leadership Coalition filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Lighted Candle Society filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Record from U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California. (10 Boxes)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for the Protection of Marriage (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Patrick Henry College filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Robert P. George, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. (Distributed).
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty Counsel, Inc. and Campaign for Children filed.
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Catholic Answers, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Catholics for the Common Good and the Marriage Law Project filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Matthew B. O’Brien (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leon R. Kass, Harvey C. Mansfield and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Michigan filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Ethics and Public Policy Center filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Minnesota for Marriage filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Helen M. Alvare (Merits) (Distributed). filed. VIDED.
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Social Science Professors. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 18 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Rev. Rick Yramategui, et al. filed.
Feb 21 2013 Brief of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo filed. (Distributed)
Feb 21 2013 Brief of respondent City and County of San Francisco filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Brief amicus curiae of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality (Gay Lesbian Medical Association) concerning the immutability of sexual orientation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Utah Pride Center, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Columbia Law School Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Hon. Judith S. Kaye (Ret.), et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Marriage Equality USA filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Beverly Hills Bar Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Edward D. Stein, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of California filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Center for Lesbian Rights filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Jonathan Wallace, Meri Wallace, and Duncan Pflaster filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of International Human Rights Advocates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Kenneth B. Mehlman, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Walter Dellinger filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Maria Nieto filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Anthropological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Political Science Professors filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Anti-Defamation League, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Adoptive and Child Welfare Advocates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Gary J. Gates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Organization of American Historians and the American Studies Association filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Equality California filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Organization for Women Foundation and the Feminist Majority Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Southern Poverty Law Center filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Foreign and Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of William N. Eskridge, Jr., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Professors of Family Law filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the State of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Council of Churches, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Companies filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Teachers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Sociological Association filed. VIDED (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Equality Council, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Women’s Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure Professors Erwin Chermerinsky and Arthur Miller filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Garden State Equality filed. (Distributed)
Mar 15 2013 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Mar 19 2013 Reply of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 26 2013 Argued. For petitioners: Chalres J. Cooper, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D. C.; and Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Full Text Legal Buzz March 25, 2013: Filings & Briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States’s Defense of Marriage Act & California’s Proposition 8 Cases

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Filings in the Defense of Marriage Act  and California’s Proposition 8 cases

Source: SCOTUS

Listed below are live links to the orders, case filings, and other information pertaining to the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 cases.  Click on each item to access further information.

Orders
12-7-12 Grant Order
12-11-12 Amicus Appointment Order
12-14-12 Briefing Schedule
Case Filings
12-144 Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., v. Kristin M. Perry, et al.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition filed by Kristin M. Perry
Brief in Opposition filed by City and County of San Francisco
Reply Brief
Brief of Petitioner on the Merits
Brief of Respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffery J. Zarrillo
Brief of Respondent City and County of San Francisco
Reply Brief of Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al.
12-307 United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, In Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition of Edith Schlain Windsor
Brief in Opposition of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Supplemental Brief of United States
Supplemental Brief of Edith Schlain Windsor
Supplemental Brief of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Reply Brief
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the
United States House of Representatives
Brief for Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Addressing Jurisdiction
Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Petitioner United States (Merits)
Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Merits)
Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction)
Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits)
Reply Brief of Court appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction)
Reply of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction)
Reply Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)

Legal Buzz February 27, 2013: Supreme Court Seems Likely to Rule Against Parts of Voting Rights Act

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS

Supreme Court Seems Likely to Rule Against Parts of Voting Rights Act

Source: ABC News Radio, 2-27-13

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court continued to express strong reservations Wednesday about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, suggesting the key provision of the law might be in danger.

That section of the law says that certain states, mostly in the South, must get any changes to voting regulations pre-cleared by federal officials….READ MORE

Political Headlines January 25, 2013: US Court of Appeals DC Circuit: President Barack Obama’s Labor Board Recess Appointments Are Unconstitutional

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional

Source: AP, 1-25-13

In a setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that could severely curtail the president’s ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies….READ MORE

Legal Buzz November 9, 2012: Supreme Court Will Take Up Major Voting Rights Case Shelby County v. Holder

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Supreme Court Will Take Up Major Voting Rights Case

Source: ABC News Radio, 11-9-12

Only three days after the contentious 2012 election, the Supreme Court announced Friday that it would take up a major voting rights case; it will be heard in the next few months and decided by June.

At issue is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in 1965. It’s a central provision of the law that requires states with a history of voter discrimination, mostly in the South, to clear any changes to their election laws with federal officials in Washington….READ MORE

Legal Buzz October 16, 2012: Supreme Court Rules in Obama Campaign’s Favor Ohio Early Voting Case

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Obama Campaign Scores in Ohio Early Voting Case

Source: ABC News Radio, 10-16-12

The Obama campaign scored a legal victory Tuesday when the Supreme Court declined to step in and allow Ohio’s early in-person voting limitation to take effect.

After two lower federal courts ruled in favor of the Obama campaign and enjoined the law, Ohio’s Republican leaders had appealed their case to the Supreme Court.

But in a one-sentence order Tuesday, the Court declined Ohio’s appeal. There were no noted dissents….READ MORE

Political Headlines June 29, 2012: Justice Department Won’t Prosecute Attorney General Eric Holder for Contempt

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 112TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Justice Department Won’t Prosecute Holder for Contempt

Chris Graythen/Getty Images

After Congress found the nation’s top law enforcement officer in contempt Thursday, the Department of Justice quickly wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner informing him that it will not prosecute U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for withholding documents in a congressional investigation of the Fast and Furious gun walking operation.

“The longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute an Executive Branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” James M. Cole, the deputy attorney general, wrote in a letter dated June 28 and addressed to the Speaker.

The House voted Thursday to pass a resolution which, for the first time in U.S. history, found a sitting U.S. attorney general in criminal contempt of Congress….READ MORE

Full Text Campaign Buzz June 28, 2012: Mitt Romney’s Speech in Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Health Care the Affordable Care Act — Vows to Repeal Obamacare

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

TRANSCRIPT: Romney remarks on high court ruling upholding Obama health care law

Source: Fox News, 6-28-12

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made the following statement Thursday following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law. 

“As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and I agree with the dissent. What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal ObamaCare.

Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. What the court did today was say that ObamaCare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that ObamaCare is good law or that it’s good policy. ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. ObamaCare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.

Let me tell you why I say that. ObamaCare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. ObamaCare cuts Medicare — cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion. And even with those cuts and tax increases, ObamaCare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations. ObamaCare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.

ObamaCare is a job-killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of ObamaCare.  Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said ObamaCare makes it less likely for them to hire people. And perhaps most troubling of all, ObamaCare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.

For all those reasons, it’s important for us to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

What are some of the things that we’ll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system? One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so.  Having 20 million people —
up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.

No. 2, got to make sure that those people who have preexisting conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance.

We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to
affordable health care.

And something that ObamaCare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.

And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you’re comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass on to the coming generations, whether you’re willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like, or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.

This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear:  If we want to get rid of ObamaCare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that:  that we return to the American people the privilege they’ve always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don’t pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don’t have a setting where jobs are lost.

If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace ObamaCare. That is my mission, that is our work, and I’m asking the people of America to join me.  If you don’t want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want, instead, a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat ObamaCare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and that’s killing jobs across this great country.

Thank you so much.”

Full Text Obama Presidency June 28, 2012: President Barack Obama’s Speech in Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Health Care the Affordable Care Act

POLITICAL SPEECHES & DOCUMENTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY
& THE 112TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President on Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

Source: WH, 6-28-12

East Room

12:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.

I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.

And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.

First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There’s more. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent’s health care plans — a provision that’s already helped 6 million young Americans. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs — a discount that’s already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support. And thanks to today’s decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance.

Now, if you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too. And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one.

Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition. They won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman. They won’t be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you’re sick, you’ll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. And if you can’t afford the premiums, you’ll receive a credit that helps pay for it.

Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons.

First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.

And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don’t require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they’re sick to buy the care they need — which would also drive up everybody else’s premiums.

That’s why, even though I knew it wouldn’t be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President.

Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared. And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically.

Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.

There’s a framed letter that hangs in my office right now. It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield. For years and years, Natoma did everything right. She bought health insurance. She paid her premiums on time. But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer. And even though she’d been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year. And despite her desire to keep her coverage — despite her fears that she would get sick again — she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance.

I carried Natoma’s story with me every day of the fight to pass this law. It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well.

Natoma is well today. And because of this law, there are other Americans — other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers — who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. These are the Americans for whom we passed this law.

The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do — what the country can’t afford to do — is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.

With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward — to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.

But today, I’m as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we’ll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.

END
12:23 P.M. EDT

Legal Buzz June 28, 2012: Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act Mandate as Tax in 5-4 Vote — Health Care Law Largely Stands, Victory for President Obama

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

THE HEADLINES….

IN FOCUS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IN 5-4 VOTE

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius — Full Text Opinion — SCOTUS, 6-28-12

Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand, in Victory for Obama

Source: NYT, 6-28-12
The Supreme Court left standing the basic provisions of the health care overhaul, ruling that the government may use its taxation powers to push people to buy insurance….READ MORE

  • Romney, GOP Pledge to Repeal Health Law: Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans on Thursday pledged a renewed effort to repeal the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul, undeterred by the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the law’s central tenet…. – WSJ, 6-28-12
  • Mitt Romney Can Use Healthcare Against Barack Obama: President Barack Obama’s White House staffers can take pride—his signature legislative achievement passed constitutional muster and they can begin to implement its most controversial provisions…. – US News, World Report, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court upholds Obama health care mandate: The historic 5-4 decision will affect the way Americans receive and pay for their medical care…. – USA Today, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: The Mandate Can Stay: The Supreme Court has announced its long-awaited decision on President Obama’s health care law…. – ABC News, 6-28-12
  • Summary of Supreme Court health care decision: The following is an edited text of the Supreme Court health-care decision…. – MarketWatch, 6-28-12
  • Following Supreme Court health-care ruling, House GOP will again try to repeal law: Now that the health-care law has been largely upheld by the Supreme Court, the GOP-controlled House plans to vote to repeal it–again…. – WaPo, 6-28-12
  • What Supreme Court’s health-care ruling means for you: The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday to uphold the bulk of the health-care law means that some popular provisions — such as requiring insurers to accept people regardless of preexisting conditions and to accept children up to age 26 on parents’ plans…. – MarketWatch, 6-28-12
  • Lawmakers react to Supreme Court decision upholding Obama health care law: The nation’s highest court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of President Obama’s sweeping health care law, which was celebrated as victory among Democrats, while blasted by Republicans who vowed a repeal…. – Fox News, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court health care decision: 10 top tweets on SCOTUS confusion: What was not helpful sorting through the Supreme Court’s health care decision on Thursday morning? Twitter. Politicos tweeted about their growing frustration at the varying accounts coming through their feeds in the minutes after the ruling was issued:1…. – Politico, 6-28-12
  • The Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare. Here’s why: The Supreme Court can’t let the public’s already shaky opinion of it get any worse. If Obamacare isn’t upheld, it’s further evidence that the court decides according to partisan politics, rather than legal principle…. – CS Monitor, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court set to rule on health care reform: The stakes could hardly be higher as the Supreme Court is set to rule on President Obama’s health care law Thursday. The legal challenge highlights two fundamentally different views of the role of government…. – CBS News, 6-28-12
  • Either way Supreme Court rules on ‘Obamacare,’ insurers win: The Supreme Court is shaking up the political chessboard today by ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act – aka “Obamacare” – and there is one player who will win no matter what the decision may be: the insurance industry…. – LAT, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court to rule Thursday on health-care law: The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care legislation Thursday morning, a potentially game-changing decision that would define the power of the national government in a presidential election year…. – WaPo, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court health care decision has Washington awaiting history: The Supreme Court’s decision on the health-care law is the one thing nearly everyone has an opinion on…. – WaPo, 6-27-12
  • Supreme Court health care ruling expected Thursday: The Supreme Court is due to make a ruling on President Obama’s health care law that could affect the political landscape, the economy and the lives of millions of Americans…. – WaPo, 6-25-12
%d bloggers like this: