Oral Arguments: State of Washington v Trump - 9th Circuit Appeal - Part ...

##########################################
As you.
30 minutes and i will try to help you with your time because i know you can't be a timer like you would in the courtroom but if you can also please try to watch the tires out that would be great with that will hear it from the governess your blankie with youth court obviously ng with the Justice Department here on behalf of the United States select reserved five minutes for rebuttal exact issue for the temporary pause on entry for individuals from seven countries that Congress last president determined in a similar context special risks in terms of terrorist infiltration into our country those determinations were made in 2015 2016 the congressional determination or statutory factors including foreign terrorist organizations significant process in the country for the country served as a safe haven for terrorists the order also temporarily halted refugee program this judgment was well within the president's power has delegated by Congress it is constitutional at the court in boston and local AA recently helped under Section 212 Congress has expressly authorized the President to suspend entry of classes of aliens when it is it is necessary when otherwise would be detrimental to the interests of the United States that's what the President did here and the president's determination that causes needed the second countries at issue here in order to ensure adequate standard from the order for Jesus strange was plainly constitutional the district court's order which contain no assessment of the legality of the order was an error we encourage the court to stay a key factor in the order and it's temporary nature with the president's determination there was a need to review existing practices for screening for nationals apply for visas to recognize you you're asking for it the temporary order this course no matter which way we like it always feels the order to avoid or are you stressed sometimes I get the impression that it was trying to argue is also felt very your honor there is some overlap but yes we are at this point just asking for a stay pending review by this Court of course the standards are pretty similar since both look at the traditional injunction standard with respect to those standards i do want to say there are there to kind of significant referable injuries that we are cited in support of our request for a study the first reparable injury has to do with the assessment of risk that the president made balancing our interest in a minute.
Welcoming people into this country with are interested in making sure our procedures are secure so that the risk of terrorism is acceptable the president struck that balance the district court's order has upset that balance this is a traditional national security judgment that is assigned to the political branches and the president and the court order immediately altered that you offered any evidence to support that you're driving for the executive order or if you really are doing that we can't even ask about whether there's evidence because this decision is not reversible sure the order includes fine that selling recognize the crucial role that screening presenter and ended in the visa process they recognize that numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in crisis of temper 11 recognizes that cheering conduct deteriorating conditions in certain countries create further problems so the order create a pause so that those so that the screen is for the screening process immediately be reviewed to ensure that adequate countries with these proceedings have been moving very fast and the strongest point on that is that in 2015 2016 both Congress and the administration made determinations that is these seven countries posed the greatest risk of terrorism that and in doing so restricted visa waiver to people who would even even even travel to those countries over the last five or six years that executive order relies on that determination and that is I think the strongest type of Alliance where the president's relying on Congress's determination that these are countries of concern and Congress's procedures to identify countries of concern based on significant terrorist activity in the country's just listen and understand the concept of that was pretty abstract not like they're having processes slight who takes compared with people coming from those countries see those of determinations and the questions by the prior to registration are pointing to is very reason for its like there's a real risk with the circumstances have changed census there would be a real existing procedures weren't allowed to say I'm like all the administration the registration conducted review while the president determine that there was a real risk that's one of the president determines that the best course was a temporary shorts in in entry for 90 days while these procedures are looked at and that's understandable the president comes into office with an obligation to protect national security of our country pop he president understand and it explains in the order that these visa screening persistent procedures are crucial president understands the Congress identified the seven countries as well as well as in 2016 the president course hey maybe seven countries work for it to people from factories and get the other words seekers just without medical for years of investigation before you have somebody have easily transcript of the hearing in the district court the district court has represented Department objective here in the apartment justice i'm going to be a federal offense is committed by people who came with those losers from these countries.
I sexy.
These percentages of moving quite fast we're doing the best we can I can't not before the court to develop the record so why hearing it now it sounds like you're trying to say you're going to prevent other evidence later I was just about to at least mention a few examples there are a number of people from Somalia connected to all shipped off who have been convicted in the United States that's the way where the record here regret it is also other examples but again you're correct these are not in practice the reason we sought immediate relief and a stay is joseph ii the court the district court's decision over eyes the president's national security judgment about the level of risk and we've been talking about the level of risk that is acceptable as soon as we're having that discussion.
It should be acknowledged that is the president is the official that is charged with making those judgments I'd also like to talk briefing are you are the president regarding reviewable the yes but we're not obviously constitutional limitations but we're discussing the risk assessment and acknowledges well i would i would say that the plaintiff has sort of virgins constitutional limitations and I think the case that is most on point as far as constitutional interest is our man Mandela and in and in those cases where you have a US citizen raising a plane the court looks only at the US citizens constitutional claim and even then looks at whether the decision is facially legitimate and bona fides the executive order here meets that standard easily it relies on truck exactly like that for its specific criteria that were analyzed actually where you do not apply a specific criteria.
Yes the president of the Planning section 212 nets which authorizes the President to suspend entry of classes of aliens if their entry would be United States Supreme Court recognized that Congress and the president share the active exclusion its exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty that Congress and the president within the powers of Congress and the president so our point there's limited review and executive order and most limited review and the executive order easily pick that would only be true.
There's colleges represent against technology any review the facts of this case because of a lot of standing other problems with the state bringing the clink what we acknowledge that dell today a limited review to see that the decision was bona fides legit Manziel finger into the decision is that something that we need to look at when refuelling executive order of the president under Section 212 °f review should be confined to the four corners of the documents determine if the document if the decision itself executive orders findings any race consider have any issues with respect to the stickers and against i'm sort of concept of our position that would be if there is a party in the US with standing to raise constitutional claim their home constitutional claims and there are problems at each step analysis state of washington doesn't have these kind of constitutional interests are the state of Washington can't bring parents Country a suit on behalf of its citizens in this context and I even wonder if you're expecting their there's some documents in question have a problem with my rescue crews share your life jacket first of the state itself well here here you have to be acting business indicate that yes yes there are changes to the authorities with the statement that was like a problem in the immigration context and actually more generally is a third-party can't challenge visa denial or revocation the claim that the state is bringing our attention the whole point of the DM case was the himself or rather in husband couldn't challenge but she could and reset the report prepared to throw it out it yourself but.
Others the exchange because we're not without the question why is the state of what proposition is the proprietor of State University having the same kind of entries dollar slightest did in mendel well as this apartment is because the states are certain appearance pitre a theory where otherwise background it yes he's finished with the first theory and I'll get the parents Patriots serious rooms are asserting the rights on behalf of the beneficiary but there's well as stateless law that in immigration context because the sort of 40 interest in the case open trans this is not something that can be a certain exactly that maybe carriers and with us with the white of the person who was excluded so the person that was excluded not have any friends just because they're directly but his wife was allows you with it an estate that means the state doesn't have the sort of constitutional rights that the wife and then add it's the way it lays her own that drives the same with dollars and Mandel Mandel was a border he might have that right with mortification because people who argue they want to be able to hear in various universities which has been invited as well.
University of washington washington state by people of the state of Washington have a standing the scholars didn't Mandel's.
Can you have to look at sort of the right of the state and i guess i was discussing the right of the state on behalf of the people that it was spring suit on behalf of that sort of collapsing inquiry you're moving away or I'm dragging you away from the parents migrated there speaking for myself I agree with you on that they can do that with the faces all the with a proprietary interest in particular at the owner and operator of the University and it seems to be like that very much as the way the slightest command eldest on that point our plane is it doesn't have a judicially cognizable or legally protected interest in third-party immigration benefits situation being raised in your reverses the majority of the court didn't say that with an immigration case Mandel with immigration case involving these of tomorrow and you sure have to talk about what the constitutional interest of the state entity is and it's well-established it there's no due process that is why is it limited the state entry in the end you want to 30 her own right she was 30 her husband right-hand man sorry are you a perfect right-hand quite a lot of proportion and so forth with the denial was super husband in this case the state of Washington is claiming that it's going to hurt the university's it's not able to have these people come to the University that sounds very much like the same kind of Rice's deserted Mandel well the university is enough now that we've turned onto the the actual challenge that the state has to ascertain taxes they have a constitutional interest because the in then it was the constitutional interest of the US citizen spouse that the court was looking at and if you get behind here decided where the school was a lot to do it right now because without valid a case where if i remember correctly these the the university with acting on behalf of a challenging a state law where that affected students hairs there you would have constitutional interest for the students at the school here aliens would not do you want to turn to a hairy why America question the results regarding and 30 by the universities and here the Energy's organization cannot test together a little bit because of the well established authority that state entity can't insert these kind of Rights and even on the merits get i would like to point out this executive order rely on on the Congressional and administrative determination of years ago 2015 2016 so it's not it's not in order that discriminate in a way on it on the basis of religion and there would not be a valid equal protection for president every thing in your order we're going to want to use not what the order does here final want to rely sorry your order don't you want to hear really feel I do want it to one point we'd like to get an answer that question for this week's back to the issue the orders that Muslim could not be admitted with anybody have standing to challenge that I think matt holland in a ring to make a constitutional challenge if there were such an order it would be by a US citizen with the road with a connection to someone seeking entry this is a far cry from that situation.
Click strike doctor and standing it's supposed to be sure it's perfect for your argument sexy recognizes lobby by the state and we shouldn't we are individuals bring the client what was the purpose when you just need to be a concrete legally protected protected interest this judicially cognizable and the pieces I mean across the country there are many lawsuits where there's clearly a stance that there are people impacted by this order and there are cases were across the country where we don't have these type of standing arts but in this case this we have there's a lot of law that says States can't step into the shoes of their citizens in this context we have the sort of proprietary interests are very just diffuse and if we credit them there would be almost no limitations on standing i think in that context it doesn't make sense to extend standing jurisprudence to cover this kind of situation but i'm not sure i'm convincing the court so I want to make one extremely key point with regard to the injunction and it is that it if it is it's a broad and should be immediately stay to the extent is over broad even if the court thinks somehow locations of the order are problematic the state is admitted that people abroad without us prior us contacts do not have rights that can be asserted by them and we agree in the district court the state set our claim is primarily focused on the people who are here or have been here and left and on the field the states with further explaining quote this case by contrast the cases on entry involves longtime residents who are here and have constitutional rights and quote that is the nature of the states claim the injunction goes far beyond that executive order violates the Establishment Clause if thats and it's the standard Establishment Clause would then we get valid under the status says that their case and longtime residents who are here at constitutional rights and quote that is from their brief at page 10 at the top of their class right that that was my closet question be made by was one individual and validate all day and that's why why why has responded discover the injunction weather station wanted or anything else should be limited to the scope of what the state itself says it is it is kind of representing through its various theories of standing issue in a broader injunction finally principle that an injunction should only be as extensive as is necessary to fully remedy the claims of the party I would declaration that state university's invite first time go back if they want to continue which made him sterile we look at your implication scholars yeah that was some declarations lines but I am describing the actual statement of the extent of their suit that they made in the brief to this court and the extent that is the relief they seek this Court should immediately stay the relief that extends broader and that is the people who have never been to the United States and section 5 of the order which which is the refugee provision and and applies to people who haven't been here yet and don't have those relations with the University and dont and dont want involve longtime residents who are here and have constitutional rights I'm into my rebuttal time but i would strongly encourage the court even if it has concerns with the government's position that is immediately stay the portion of the injunction that applies outside the boundaries of the US and extends beyond people who have been in you are in the US or who have been in the US.


##########################################