- the only honest and independent court decision in the country refusing to restrict #PresidentDonaldTrump in his ability to exclude aliens from the United States based on top-secret considerations of national security (Massachusetts federal district court, #judgeNathanielGorton) and
- the publicity-driven result-oriented decision of the 3-panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the #9thCircuit, where both the court in its entirety, and one judge (and his 3 law clerks) in particular had an absolute disqualifying financial interest in the outcome of the case.
Standing - that real actionable rights of plaintiffs have been violated by defendants - is a jurisdictional barrier for the court review.
- green-card holders (lawful permanent residents);
- F-1 student visa holders and
- "lawful non-immigrants" (non-resident visa holders with work permission)
The rule adopted by the Court of Appeals would apply not only to law enforcement operations abroad, but also to other foreign policy operations which might result in "searches or seizures."
The United States frequently employs armed forces outside this country -- over 200 times in our history -- for the protection of American citizens or national security. Congressional Research Service, Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1983 (E. Collier ed. 1983).
Application of the Fourth Amendment to those circumstances could significantly disrupt the ability of the political branches to respond to foreign situations involving our national interest.
Were respondent to prevail, aliens with no attachment to this country might well bring actions for damages to remedy claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment in foreign countries or in international waters."
In its holding, the U.S. Supreme Court provided that:
"The Court of Appeals' rule would have significant and deleterious consequences for the United States in conducting activities beyond its borders. The rule would apply not only to law enforcement operations abroad, but also to other foreign operations -- such as armed forces actions -- which might result in "searches and seizures." Under the rule, aliens with no attachment to this country might bring actions for damages to remedy claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment in foreign countries or in international waters, and Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches would be plunged into a sea of uncertainty as to what might be reasonable in the way of searches and seizures conducted abroad. Any restrictions on searches and seizures incident to American action abroad must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty, or legislation. Pp. 494 U. S. 273-275.
Applications for TROs sought to apply due process and 4th Amendment to "American action abroad" - by asking the court to rule, contrary to the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, that aliens located outside of the U.S. borders do have due process rights for the denial of entry into the U.S., and to rule that their detention outside of the U.S. borders may violate the 4th Amendment.
So, the law was clear:
according to the U.S. Supreme Court precedent,
- aliens of ALL classes
- located outside of the borders of the United States
- had NO due process right to claim when they are denied entry by the U.S. government based on considerations of national security -
and, as I already wrote before, pressuring the President to reveal "evidence" he relied upon in issuing the order, and doing it during Internet-broadcasted oral argument and punishing him when his counsel did not reveal any classified information to the entire wide world - the three judges should be impeached for, basically acting as spies for the hostile intelligence communities for whom they tried to spare the effort of spying - as judges who had no top-level clearance (same as everybody from the entire world listening to the oral argument) were pushing the President to produce that evidence for the entire world to see and hear, while having no jurisdiction to even review the claims - for total lack of standing.
- family members;
- "communities" -
- "reviewability" of the case in front of them;
- and President Trump's supposed arrogance to claim (correctly and in reliance on constitutional precedents) that the case in front of the court is not reviewable - because of lack of standing to begin with -
- the judge;
- the prosecutor; and
- the public defender
Yet, there are no "broad societal interests served" to provide the same measure of protection, immunity from suit, to a public defender who is ensuring such obviously unimportant (to Judge Canby) "societal interests" as:
- ensuring 1st Amendment access to court,
- 6th Amendment right to counsel, and through that right,
- due process right to impartial judicial review,
- right to a fair trial before liberty, property or life is taken away;
- right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and
- all other constitutional rights, procedural and substantive, that must be protected in criminal proceedings as a matter of U.S. Constitution and public policy.