Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules 3-0 Against Trump Administration

A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of Washington and Minnesota in their lawsuit against the federal government. (Read the PDF of the decision here) The ruling means the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by Judge James Robart blocking the implementation of President Trump’s travel/immigration ban is still in effect. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called it “a complete and total repudiation of the Trump administration’s legal position in this case.” (Watch the video here)

Toobin also pointed out that the three judges who made this decision were appointed by Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, so there is no political division. In addition, Judge Robart was a George W. Bush appointee, meaning that four federal judges from both parties have ruled unanimously against the administration in two separate decisions.   If the administration appeals to the Supreme Court and the justices split 4-4, the Ninth Circuit opinion would stand, though not with the weight of a Supreme Court ruling decided by a majority of the full court.  Keep in mind there are other lawsuits that have been filed against the administration in other states, so this is not over by any means.

Here is a sampling of reactions to the Ninth Circuit’s decision:

Former Maryland Governor Endorses Buttigieg for DNC Chair

Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland and Democratic presidential candidate, endorsed South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg to be the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. O’Malley told Politico:

“I’ve known Pete Buttigieg for many years, he has been a terrific mayor. He’s one of those new, up-and-coming leaders in our country and in our party that’s really bringing forward a new and better way of governing,” O’Malley — who himself briefly considered a run for the chairmanship before bowing out in November — told POLITICO. “He speaks with a clarity that our party really, really needs right now. He has been successful in a so-called red state, he brings to the public service of being mayor the background of having served in our armed forces.”

“He is of a new generation of leadership. Our party sometimes talks about bringing forward a new generation of leadership, well, hey man, there’s never been a better time,” added O’Malley, referring to the 35-year-old veteran of the war in Afghanistan.

Some context and back story here:

  • O’Malley briefly considered running for DNC chairman himself very early on but ultimately chose not to get in the race.
  • Buttigieg rival Tom Perez – a Maryland native – served as O’Malley’s secretary of labor in 2007.  That O’Malley is endorsing Buttigieg and not Perez is seen as a snub in some quarters.
  • O’Malley is endorsing Buttigieg days before the fourth and final DNC regional forum, scheduled to take place in Baltimore – the city where O’Malley was once mayor – this Saturday.

Buttigieg – a Navy reservist and veteran of Afghanistan – also received the endorsement of VoteVets, a progressive veterans’ group:

“Progressives need fresh and bold new leadership, like Mayor Pete, to lead the way to regaining the majority in Congress, and the White House,” said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.  “Veterans like Pete know how to communicate to so many Americans why it is progressive policies that will keep America safe, and prosperous.  Being from the heartland, Pete also knows how to reconnect with huge swaths of the country that Democrats, frankly, have ignored.  He has a record of success in Indiana doing just that – not just on a rhetorical level, but on a technical and strategic level, as a great organizer.  That’s why he’s exactly the right person to lead the progressive movement, as chair.”

Tom Perez Rolls Out Big Endorsements as DNC Chair Race Enters Final Stretch

Tom Perez announced he had been endorsed by David Pepper and Marcel Groen, the chairmen of the Ohio and Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

Pepper:

“To win states like Ohio, Democrats must have a leader who can rebuild our party, reach out to our big tent and refocus our message on creating real economic opportunity for Americans in rural counties, small cities and our urban centers,” Pepper said. “Tom Perez can do just that. Tom combines the unique experience of having successfully led large, complex organizations, with a strong progressive record of accomplishment on issue after issue. He understands the need for robust state parties to play the central role in an effective progressive infrastructure and the importance of building a true partnership between the national party and state parties in order to win elections at all levels.”

Groen:

“While we are blessed with many impressive candidates for DNC chair, one stands out. Tom Perez has dedicated his life to fighting for the little guy, from his efforts to stop discriminatory voter ID laws at the Justice Department to requiring employers to disclose expenditures that pressure employees not to unionize,” Groen said in a statement. “After Donald Trump won Pennsylvania this past election, it is now more important than ever that we have a chair with this sort of record of results who can speak to people in Philadelphia as well as Johnstown and build a DNC for every Democrat.”

The significance of these endorsements is twofold: the real impact is that as state party chairs, both of them are voting members of the DNC and will elect the next chairman at the party’s winter meeting in Atlanta at the end of February. The symbolic impact is that these are two of the crucial Rust Belt states that cost Hillary Clinton the election.

Beyond them, Perez also rolled out endorsements from several former Department of Justice officials and U.S. attorneys (remember, federal law prohibits officials currently in the Department of Justice from making political endorsements), the most high-profile being his former boss, Attorney General Eric Holder:

“I truly have great respect for all of the candidates running for DNC chair, but as we wage an epic battle for the heart and soul of our nation, I strongly believe that Tom Perez is the progressive fighter and change agent we need to lead the Democratic party and to rebuild the party infrastructure in the states. I’m confident Tom is up to the tasks that will confront the next DNC Chair.  I endorse him with great enthusiasm.”

This follows up on the news of Keith Ellison receiving the endorsement of John Burton, the chairman of the California Democratic Party. All candidates for DNC chairman are rolling out endorsements in the lead up to the fourth and final regional DNC forum, scheduled to take place in Baltimore on Saturday.

California Democratic Party Chairman Endorses Keith Ellison

Big get for Keith Ellison in the DNC chairman race. He sent out this statement from John Burton, chairman of the California Democratic Party:

“I am supporting Keith Ellison for DNC chair because he is committed full time to organizing field efforts in key states, and I agree with him that Democrats must do a better job to motivate voters across the nation, including championing working families and their issues.

“Keith knows that elections aren’t won in Washington, D.C. He understands the investment and support state parties need and will help foster a strong bench of candidates, effective field operations and open communication between the National Democratic Party and every state, especially those that need it the most.

“And over the last few months, I’ve received overwhelming feedback from activist Democrats across CA who back Keith.  People like to refer to California as a blue state, but it was just over 6 years ago we fought to successfully take back the Governorship from a Republican, and I credit our successes to a re-energized state party that supports its grassroots volunteers and promotes candidates who reflect California’s values. Keith Ellison’s commitment to organizing gives me hope we’ll see similar results across the nation.”

Why is this important? 1) As state party chairman, Burton is one of the party insiders who has a say in picking the next DNC chairman at the party’s winter meeting in Atlanta at the end of the month. 2) As NBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald points out, California has the largest delegation to the DNC.  (NOTE: For those of you seeing this as a Bernie-Hillary proxy war, keep in mind that Hillary Clinton won the California primary 55-43.)

UPDATE: Here’s the statement from the California Democratic Party’s Twitter account:

Richmond Democrat Wins Special Election for Virginia House Seat

Richmond School Board member Jeff Bourne is now the newest member of the Virginia House of Delegates, having defeated Libertarian candidate John Barclay and Independent candidate Regie Ford with a whopping 89 percent of the vote in the special election for the Commonwealth’s 71st House District.

The 71st District, which includes parts of Richmond and Henrico County, was previously represented by Democratic Delegate Jennifer McClellan, who vacated the seat after being elected to represent the 9th Senate District. This election gives Republicans a 66-34 majority in the House.  Bourne and the other members of the House of Delegates are up for reelection in November of 2017.

Statement from Democratic Party of Virginia Chairwoman Susan Swecker:

“Congratulations to Delegate-Elect Jeff Bourne on his victory in Virginia’s 71st House District. Jeff brings a fresh vision and passion for public service and he’ll fight for Virginia families, education, and good-paying jobs. We look forward to seeing what lies ahead for Jeff in his new role in the House.”

Statement from DLCC Executive Director Jessica Post:

“Congratulations to Delegate-elect Bourne on his success tonight,” said Post. “An outstanding legislative candidate with a strong background in public service has won the second consecutive election since President Trump’s inauguration – a crucial contrast to an administration already rife with desperation and incompetence. DLCC is thrilled by Del.-elect Bourne’s victory. He reflects both Democratic and Virginia values, and his win is just one of many electoral victories to come for down-ballot Democrats as voters reject the Trump administration’s extreme and bigoted agenda.”

State Attorneys General Prepare Legal Opposition to Trump Executive Order

The New York Times has a good report on the Democratic attorneys general who have been mounting legal opposition to the Trump administration’s agenda – focusing on the big issue right now, the travel ban executive order:

The three Democratic lawyers met over dinner in a cavernous hotel in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., picking at seafood as they discussed how to take on President Trump: Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York; Josh Shapiro, his counterpart in Pennsylvania; and Xavier Becerra, a former congressman who had been sworn in as attorney general of California only a day earlier.

Unrecognized so far from home, and little known to one another, the men spent a Wednesday evening late in January discussing a range of White House policies that might unsettle their states, including a mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants.

They never anticipated that a live-fire test of their teamwork would come less than 48 hours later.

Mr. Trump’s Jan. 27 decree on immigration, shutting off entry to the United States from seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries and halting refugee admissions, left states and cities scrambling to respond. Amid mounting protests and emotional scenes of disorder at American airports, it offered a galvanizing first challenge for a gang of Democratic attorneys general who have vowed to check the power of the White House.

In interviews, more than a dozen Democratic attorneys general, governors and party operatives detailed a week of frenzied litigation, late-night and early-morning phone calls and text messages, and strategies devised on airplanes and at sporting events. All told, Democrats say, the legal onslaught against Mr. Trump was a crystallizing moment for the party’s attorneys general — and a model for how to stall or unwind the administration policies they find most offensive.

The key quote, from New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas: “It does seem that we are becoming, potentially, the fourth branch of government.”

One update to this story: sixteen attorneys general have filed an amicus brief on behalf of their states with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in State of Washington v. Trump. The key excerpt:

The Executive Order at issue in this suit bars entry into the United States of nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries, including those who hold valid U.S. visas for work, study, and travel. It hinders the free exchange of information, ideas, and talent between the affected countries and the States, including at the States’ many educational institutions; harms the States’ life sciences, technology, health care, finance, and other industries, as well as innumerable small businesses throughout the States; and inflicts economic harm on the States through diminished tax revenues and other means.
Although the residents, institutions, industries, and economies of the amici States differ, all stand to face the concrete, immediate, and irreparable harms caused by the Executive Order.

Virginia Democratic Party Chairwoman Running for Presidency of State Party Chairs

Susan Swecker, the chairwoman of the Democratic Party of Virginia, announced her candidacy for president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, the position currently held by New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley.  Here’s an excerpt from the letter she sent out to state party chairs and vice chairs to launch her campaign:

The message of my campaign and my goal if elected is simple: to help us grow and maintain strong Democratic Party infrastructures that are sustainable regardless of any one election cycle.  Simply put, we have done that in Virginia and I want to partner with you to build better, stronger vibrant state parties across the country.

I firmly believe the way to rebuild the Democratic Party starts with us.  As State Party Chairs and Vice Chairs we are on the ground – on the front lines – talking with voters, building programs, and we are the ones who know that we must not just turn out the base, but persuade voters. We, along with the organizations we have built in our states, are the ones who are the best hope Democrats have to rebuild from the bottom up.

While we lost the presidency on November 8th, we had many success stories. Working with our stakeholders we made decisions that brought victories at state and local levels.  We also saw the striking difference when our united efforts directly led to higher performance than the top of the ticket. That isn’t a coincidence – it is a testament to hard work, coordination and teamwork on the ground by the people who know the lay of the land the best.

Virginia has been one of the Democratic Party’s biggest success stories over the past decade or so, for statewide and congressional races, and has turned blue for the past three consecutive presidential campaigns, after a string of uninterrupted Republican victories from 1968 to 2004.

The election for the position will take place at the Democrats’ meeting in Atlanta at the end of February, at which they will also be electing officers for leadership positions in the Democratic National Committee.

Former National Security Officials Call Trump Executive Order “Ill-Conceived, poorly Implemented and Ill-Explained”

A group of ten former senior national security officials filed a joint declaration (Read the PDF here)  with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that President Trump’s Executive Order “does not further – but instead harms – sound U.S. national security and foreign policy.” The document is short and well worth reading in its entirety, but here are the highlights:

  • “Four of us (Haines, Kerry, Monaco and Rice) were current on active intelligence regarding all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the U.S. as recently as one week before the issuance of the Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order.”
  • “We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds.”
  • “There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries. Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order. Very few attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens.”
  •  “As a national security measure, the Order is unnecessary. National security – based immigration restrictions have consistently been tailored to respond to: (1) specific, credible threats based on individualized information, (2) the best available intelligence and (3) thorough interagency legal and policy review. This Order rests not on such tailored grounds, but rather, on (1) general bans (2) not supported by any new intelligence that the Administration has claimed, or of which we are aware, and (3) not vetted through careful interagency legal and policy review.”
  • “In our professional opinion, the Order was ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained.”
  • “The Order is of unprecedented scope. We know of no case where a President has invoked his statutory authority to suspend admission for such a broad class of people. Even after 9/11, the U.S. Government did not invoke the provisions of law cited by the Administration to broadly bar entrants based on nationality, national origin, or religious affiliation.”
  • “Maintaining the district court’s temporary restraining order while the underlying legal issues are being adjudicated would not jeopardize national security. It would simply preserve the status quo ante, still requiring that individuals be subjected to all the rigorous legal vetting processes that are currently in place. Reinstating the Executive Order would wreak havoc on innocent lives and deeply held American values.”
  • “Rebranding a proposal first advertised as a “Muslim Ban” as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it necessary, effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.”

The signatories of the declaration are:

  • Madeleine Albright (Ambassador to the United Nations, 1993-1997. Secretary of State, 1997-2001)
  • Avril Haines (CIA Deputy Director, 2013-2015. Deputy National Security Adviser, 2015-2017)
  • Michael Hayden (NSA Director, 1999-2005. CIA Director 2006-2009)
  • John Kerry (Secretary of State, 2013-2017)
  • John McLaughlin (CIA Deputy Director, 2000-2004. Acting CIA Director, 2004)
  • Lisa Monaco (Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Deputy National Security Adviser 2013-2017)
  • Michael Morrell (Career CIA official since 1980. CIA Deputy Director 2010-2013. Acting CIA Director, 2011, 2012-2013)
  • Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security, 2009-2013)
  • Leon Panetta (CIA Director, 2009-2011. Secretary of Defense, 2011-2013)
  • Susan Rice (Ambassador to the United Nations, 2009-2013. National Security Adviser, 2013-2017)

Oregon Governor’s Executive Order Prohibits State Agencies from Participating in Religious Registry

Oregon governor Kate Brown issued an executive order a few days ago instructing executive branch agencies not to target or discriminate against people solely on the basis of their immigration status.

One particularly interesting provision to keep in mind:

5. Non-participation in Religious Registry. No state agency may use moneys, equipment, or personnel to assist in or facilitate the creation of a registry the purpose of which is to identify members of a religious group, except as required by federal or state law.

In other words, the state of Oregon will not participate in any Muslim database or registry.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Refuses to Reinstate Trump Travel Ban

A late night decision (Read the PDF here) from a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals came down in the early hours of Sunday morning:

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court early Sunday morning denied the US government’s emergency request to resume President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for both sides to file legal briefs before the court makes its final decision after a federal judge halted the program on Friday.

What this means is that the ruling by US District Court Judge James Robart, who suspended the ban, will remain in place — for now.

The US Justice Department filed an appeal just after midnight Sunday, asking to pause Robart’s sweeping decision that temporarily halted enforcement of several key provisions of Trump’s executive order.

Lawyers from both sides have until Monday (tomorrow) to make any filings. If the Ninth Circuit upholds Robart’s TRO, expect the Department of Justice to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case with its current 8 justice lineup, that means that if the opinion is a 4-4 partisan split, the Ninth Circuit opinion will stand. If the Supreme Court rules by a 5-3 majority or greater, then its opinion will supersede the Ninth Circuit’s.