IRAPP V TRUMP UM LAW FREE
Lastly, we explain that there is no basis whatsoever for the court to rely on the Establishment Clause, which was designed only to ban a government “Establishment” of religion, not acts disfavoring religion, which were addressed by the Free Exercise Clause. Our brief supported President Trump’s effort to secure our borders against entry by those coming from select countries where their background cannot be checked. (In truth, the President’s First Executive Order was fully lawful, and the President could ban the entry of Muslims as a class, had he desired to do so.) Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Today, our firm filed its third brief in support of President Trump’s effort to impose immigration controls.
It suggests that if the Courts assume the power to scrutinize the motives behind an Executive Order, that the President could be expected to scrutinize the motives behind judges who manipulate their decisions based on their personal political convictions.
The brief then analyzes the President’s broad discretionary power to ban entry into the United States. We ask the Court to consider whether this rationale could also be applied to enjoin Presidentially ordered military operations against Islamic nations. The brief addressed three broad points.įirst, we explain how the rationale underlying the district and circuit court decision undermines the President’s inherent and statutory authority to control immigration into the United States. Our brief supports both President Trump’s application to stay this injunction, and supports his petition for certiorari.
Supreme Court an amicus brief supporting President Trump’s challenge to the Fourth Circuit decision which approved a Maryland judge’s injunction against his Executive Order.
0 kommentar(er)
