Donald Trump is facing the first legal confrontation as president, and his response has been disturbingly predictable.
Capping a week of chaos and protests at American airports, a federal judge in Seattle halted enforcement of Trump’s executive order barring migrants from Syria, Iraq and five other predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. And the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, so far, has denied a Trump administration request to reinstate the ban.
A final decision ultimately may rest with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The challenge for Trump is presenting a cogent defense in response to 15 states, multiple universities and civil liberties organizations, more than 100 major employers and numerous distinguished former diplomats and national security officials who have signed on to legal arguments labeling the president’s executive order unlawful and a threat to the economy and, potentially, national security.
So far, however, the president has offered no evidence that vetting of immigrants and refugees is inadequate — or that a single terrorist has slipped through the system. Instead, he has relied on a characteristic barrage of social media insults.
In a series of Twitter posts, he called U.S. District Judge James Robart, an appointee of George W. Bush, a “so-called judge.” Trump went on to accuse Robart of “putting our country in peril” and position the judge, and the entire judiciary, as scapegoats: “If something happens blame him and court system.”
This isn’t the first time that Trump has attacked the integrity of the judicial branch. During last year’s campaign, he claimed U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a civil case against Trump University, couldn’t be impartial because he “happens to be, we believe, Mexican.” Curiel, like Vice President Mike Pence, was born in Indiana.
Petty insults are no substitute for actual legal arguments, which may explain Tuesday’s damage control efforts. White House spokesman Sean Spicer assured Americans that Trump believes in judicial independence, and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly conceded missteps in the rollout while predicting that the president’s order will be upheld.
The legal issue may be a close call. A 1952 law authorizes presidents to deny entry to “any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States (who) would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In the Seattle case, lawyers for the states of Minnesota and Washington argued that executive powers aren’t unlimited and that federal courts “have no more sacred role than protecting marginalized groups against irrational, discriminatory conduct.”
In staying Trump’s executive order, Robart cited successful challenges by states including Texas to President Barack Obama’s orders protecting some children of undocumented immigrants from deportation. The irony is rich, but more important is the precedent that states have standing to challenge presidential orders involving immigration.
However the case turns out — and we hope the plaintiffs prevail — Trump has yet again shown a dangerous tendency to make hasty decisions without demonstrating the necessity or considering the potential adverse impacts, then following up with unjustified attacks on anyone, even federal judges, who disagrees. Sad.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.