In yet another example of lawless judicial activism, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction against President Trump’s travel and refugee ban.
The court justifies the standing given to the plaintiffs, as they said that there was “concrete” harm for an Egyptian-American citizen whose Syrian mother-in-law would be prevented from coming to the United States because of the travel ban. The court also ruled that the other plaintiff, the state of Hawaii, had standing based on the notion that the travel ban would cause harm to its state university and prevent the state from letting in refugees on its own.
That justification for standing alone is insane. Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro noted that it was asinine to suggest that the Egyptian citizen had standing due to “concrete” harm, pointing out, “Most government action is devastating to someone. Does that give them standing to sue? What absolute idiocy.”
Shapiro also argued that the logic that a university would be harmed by the travel ban would essentially give the green light for states to “to overturn all immigration laws.”
The ruling only gets worse from there, as the court eventually concluded that the Trump administration failed to justify the need for the travel ban:
Basically, the court is arguing that the Trump administration did not prove that the ban would advance national security interests and that national security alone does not justify executive action from the president.
But as National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy has previously explained, federal law does indeed give the president the power to put pauses on immigration at any time. It’s not for the court to decide if the policy is effective or not, only if it’s legal.
Additionally, the court ruled that the travel ban violates federal law preventing discrimination based on nationality, but McCarthy has also explained that temporary pauses on immigration based on countries of origin are acceptable under federal law if the president believes that it’s necessary for national security purposes. Note that it’s what the president decides, not the courts.
However, the court did allow the administration to review their vetting standards, a sliver of rationality in an otherwise-ridiculous ruling.
Overall, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is yet another example of judicial tyranny that is becoming increasingly rampant. The remedy lies with Congress.