Judicial activism marches on.
Forbes reports that judging by a live-streamed telephone conference with a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court is likely to leave in place the temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending immigration and refugee admissions from seven Middle East countries:
[T]he judges peppered attorney August Flentje for the Trump administration with sometimes hostile questions, including repeatedly asking him to answer yes or no as to whether an outright ban on Muslim travelers would be illegal […]
Flentje argued the courts shouldn’t even be second-guessing President Trump’s executive order, which he said is based upon findings by Congress and former President Obama identifying visitors from all seven countries as potential security risks. The executive order is a temporary measuring allowing the incoming administration to review security procedures before allowing those foreigners back into the country, he said.
Judge Richard Clifton sounded skeptical, calling the White House’s security concerns “pretty abstract.”
Leaving the TRO in place is by no means an end to the case; a more comprehensive hearing is pending, and the administration is sure to appeal it to the Supreme Court if necessary, but the fact that it’s been tied up this much is a blatant case of judicial overreach.
As Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky explains, the executive order is fully consistent with both Trump’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, and with authority Congress has expressly delegated to him.
Further, Clifton’s question of whether the White House’s security concerns were well-founded (and they are) is a policy judgment, and therefore overstepping his scope as an unelected jurist.
Depending on how desperate the Left is to judicially block his perfectly-legal efforts to protect the country from terrorism, one can’t help but wonder if Trump will again make history by following the lead of one of his predecessors, Andrew Jackson, and stand up to a runaway judiciary by saying an activist judge “has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”