TAKE ACTION: Email the 9th Circuit Court supporting President Trump’s travel ban

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on President Trump’s revised travel ban from early March.  The federal appeals court held a hearing on May 15, 2017 at 12:30 p.m. ET in Seattle to hear the case filed by the State of Hawaii. The court reviewed the decision issued by Hawaii U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson regarding the ban’s enforcement.

The three judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals includes Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins.  All three judges were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

US District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued an order that halted enforcement of the travel ban on the erroneous basis that it likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it allegedly discriminates against Muslims.

The ACLU lawyer in the Maryland travel ban case admitted that the executive order would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it.   Fourth US Circuit Court Judge Paul V. Niemeyer questioned the plaintiffs’ attorney, Omar Jadwat, in the Maryland case about his motive for opposing the ban.  Judge Niemeyer asked “If some other candidate had won the election and issued this order, I gather you would have no problem with that.”  Then Judge Niemeyer stated and asked Jadwat “We have an order on its face. We can read this order and we have no antecedent statements by a candidate about this order. We have a candidate who won the presidency — some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency — and then chose to issue this particular order with whatever counsel he took. … He issued this executive order. Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored?”  Jadwat had already twice refused to answer the question, but when the judge offered such a comprehensive hypothetical, he admitted: “Yes, your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional.”

Judge Watson’s order:

• Failed to recognize the president’s statutory authority to execute the ban pursuant to Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) of Title 8.
• Failed to consider the travel ban addressed only six of forty-nine (12%) Muslim majority countries.  Pew Research reported on January 31, 2017 there are forty-nine Muslim majority countries.
• Ignored the fact that the travel ban applied equally to all nationalities and religions from the six designated countries.
• Failed to recognize that for the past 30 years, every President has invoked that power to protect the Nation by suspending entry of categories of aliens.
• Is unprecedented in that it restrains an executive order by the President of the United States because of statements that he made as a private citizen before he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
• Strongly appears to place a priority on politics instead of justice.

Judge Watson’s order perpetuates a dangerous myth that President Trump’s travel ban is a “Muslim Ban.”  What other federal laws will be unenforceable against Muslims if the U.S. Courts erroneously rule that President Trump and his administration are biased against Muslims?

Nearly 25,000 people sent emails in 2014 and 2015 through Floridafamily.org that urged the judges serving on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a three judge panel decision that banned the Youtube.com video titled Innocence of Muslims, a critique of Mohammad.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins to make national security a priority over politics and public safety a priority over political correctness in the case of Hawaii v Trump.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email to urge the 9th Circuit Court judges to make national security a priority over politics and public safety a priority over political correctness in the case of Hawaii v Trump.

---