#ninthcircuit

[alexanderrogge]

Ezra Kaplan - DEA agent seeks federal immunity after allegedly killing Salem cyclist:

Oregon #NinthCircuit #FederalImmunity #Fentanyl #DrugEnforcement #WarOnDrugs #TrafficCrash #TrafficSafety #BicycleSafety #FailureToYield #NegligentHomicide #CarViolence #AssaultCar #StopCars #NotOneMore #Transportation #LawEnforcement #Law

#oregon #ninthcircuit #federalimmunity #fentanyl #drugenforcement #warondrugs #trafficcrash #trafficsafety #bicyclesafety #failuretoyield #negligenthomicide #carviolence #assaultcar #stopcars #notonemore #transportation #lawenforcement #law

[socialsf]

#mycommute #uscourtofappeals #ninthcircuit #bicyclist #bikelane #streetsofsanfrancisco #dusk #tuesdayevening #onlyinsf (at US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) https://www.instagram.com/p/By4SNmKngTN/?igshid=1jvulpdxgtio2

#mycommute #uscourtofappeals #ninthcircuit #bicyclist #bikelane #streetsofsanfrancisco #dusk #tuesdayevening #onlyinsf

[sarahwatching]

(via Judicial Activist Functional Dysfunction: National Injunctions)

#NationalInjunction UniversalInjunction TrumpvHawaii NinthCircuit JudicialActivists SarahWatching SCOTUS SupremeCourt JusticeThomas

[emichaelharrington]

This was my first Penn State presentation today (Global Entreprenurship Week) - my second was to students & faculty at Penn State Law. It’s been a perfect day! #pennstate #pennstatelaw #pennstatelawschool #nittanylions #nittanylionsnation #ip #copyright #copyrightinfringement #emichaelmusic #blurredlines #ninthcircuit 😍🚀🌎🎹🎼🍷 (at Penn State) https://www.instagram.com/p/Bp8Lp54BPLn/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=zcu6dmcxez1g

#pennstate #pennstatelaw #pennstatelawschool #nittanylions #nittanylionsnation #ip #copyright #copyrightinfringement #emichaelmusic #blurredlines #ninthcircuit

[aabany-group]

Press Release: NAPABA Applauds Ninth Circuit Decision Upholding Block on Revised Muslim Ban

For Immediate Release June 12, 2017

Contact: Brett Schuster, Communications Manager, [email protected], 202-775-9555

WASHINGTON — The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) applauds the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s per curiam ruling maintaining a lower court’s block on President Trump’s March 6, 2017, revised executive order barring individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees from entering the United States.

In March 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson of the District of Hawaii issued a preliminary injunction on the travel restrictions in this lawsuit, State of Hawaii v. Trump, which was brought by the state and individuals impacted by the executive order.

Today’s unanimous Ninth Circuit opinion affirmed the plaintiffs’ right to challenge the executive order and upheld their statutory claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ assertion that the President’s broad authority on the entry of foreign individuals has constraints, and that the executive order exceeds the scope of the authority delegated to the President by Congress under the INA, including the statute’s prohibition against nationality-based discrimination.

On April 21, NAPABA filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, supported by 43 NAPABA affiliates, after joining this first challenge to the revised executive order with an amicus brief filed in the district court. NAPABA’s briefs describe the history of the statutory exclusion of Asians and Pacific Islanders under early U.S. immigration law — including the first federal law to ban a group of people from entering the country on the basis of race — prior to the passage of the INA of 1965, which outlawed nationality-based discrimination. NAPABA argued that President Trump’s revised order, with its anti-Muslim underpinnings, violates this unambiguous prohibition on discrimination established by Congress.

NAPABA awaits the decision on the government’s petitions to the Supreme Court in both this case and the parallel case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, and will continue to work to ensure the executive order is permanently struck down by the courts.

Read NAPABA’s amicus briefs in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and before the district court here.

Read the March 6, 2017, statement of NAPABA and the South Asian Bar Association – North America, joined by 14 affiliates, against the revised executive order.

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of almost 50,000 attorneys and approximately 75 national, state, and local Asian Pacific American bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government.            

NAPABA continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of color in the legal profession.

#muslimban #ninthcircuit #napaba #executiveorder #immigration

[southernsense]

BZ's Berserk Bobcat Saloon, 2-7-17

#devos #immigration #judgerobart #ninthcircuit #trump

[worldnewsinpictures]

Ninth Circuit rules against Calif. Gov. Newsom order barring private school in-person teaching. Great t-shirt for conservatives. Another reason to recall Governor Gavin Newsome.... Got an opinion about this? See what others are saying.... See MORE -> https://worldnewsinpictures.com/ninth-circuit-rules-calif-gov-newsom-order #Ninth #NinthCircuit #NinthCircuitCalif #Newsom #NewsomGreat #NewsomGreatAnother #Gavin #GavinNewsome #GavinNewsomeGot #SeeMORE #Circuit

[go-redgirl]

Supreme Court Hands Trump Administration Win On Deportation Powers FOX News ^ | 06-25-2020 | By Ronn Blitzer

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday for the Trump administration in a key immigration case, determining that a federal law limiting an asylum applicant’s ability to appeal a determination that he lacked a credible fear of persecution from his home country does not violate the Constitution.

The ruling means the administration can deport some people seeking asylum without allowing them to make their case to a federal judge. The 7-2 ruling applies to those who fail their initial asylum screenings, making them eligible for quick deportation.

In a decision in the case of Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the court ruled that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) – which prevents judicial review of the credible fear determination – does not violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, which protects habeas corpus privileges that allow courts to determine if a person should be released due to unlawful detention.

READ MORE STORIES ABOUT:

TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government KEYWORDS: aliens; build the fence; daca; dream act; dreamers; immigration; judiciary; ninth circuit; ninth circus; scotus; supreme court; supremes

___________________________________________________________

INDIVIDUALS/COMMENTS/POSTS:

To: Red Badger

Another idiotic Ninth Circus decision bites the dust!

posted on 6/25/2020, 11:31:02 AM by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)

_________________________________________________

To: Red Badger

Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the majority’s ruling, but in a concurring opinion authored by Breyer, they made clear they believe the ruling only applies in this particular case.

“I agree that enforcing those limits in this particular case does not violate the Suspension Clause’s constitutional command,” Breyer wrote. “But we need not, and should not, go further.”

 posted on 6/25/2020, 11:31:56 AM by newfreep

________________________________________________________

To: Red Badger

Wow, to lib judges voted for this?

I am surprised it was not nine to nothing, well actually not that surprised...

because it essentially Grant constitutional rights to non-citizens. Again.

 posted on 6/25/2020, 11:33:42 AM by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself.)

____________________________________________________________

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

...determining that a federal law limiting an asylum applicant’s ability to appeal a determination that he lacked a credible fear of persecution from his home country does not violate the Constitution.

posted on 6/25/2020, 11:44:42 AM by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)

__________________________________________________________________

To: Red Badger

The power of the Executive to control immigration is clear in the Constitution and the law. Yet, the Left continues to use corrupt judges to attempt to endorse their illegal actions. They lost this time, but they will try it again.

posted on 6/25/2020, 11:45:24 AM by centurion316

_____________________________________________________

To: Mr. K

You can thank the dolt Gerry Ford and his cousin GHW Bush for the two dissenters, Kagan and Sotomayor. They were appointed to replace John Paul Stevens and David Souter, who waited until Obama got in office to retire so he could select their replacements on the Supreme Court. But we had assurances from both Ford and Bush that their picks were “very conservative” and they dissed anyone who questioned this. They turned out to be doctrinaire, far left liberals, just like their replacements. Stupid is as stupid did.

posted on 6/25/2020, 11:50:29 AM by laconic

_______________________________________________________

To: scottinocOops GHWB 1 for 1 Clinton 2 for 2 GWB 2 for 2 Obama 0 for 2 Trump 2 for 2

 posted on 6/25/2020, 11:54:49 AM by scottinoc

__________________________________________________________

To: newfreep

“Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the majority’s ruling, but in a concurring opinion authored by Breyer, they made clear they believe the ruling only applies in this particular case.”

So every individual deportation case has to be reviewed by the Supreme Court?

 posted on 6/25/2020, 12:01:51 PM by alternatives? (Why have an army if there are no borders?)

________________________________________________________

To: Red Badger

This should have been a 9-0 decision. The powers of the Executive WRT immigrants is clear under federal law - pretty much anything goes in terms of admitting (or not) ANY person for ANY reason. Jimmy Carter even used that power to deport Iranians, and no one put up a fuss then.

The entire immigration fight is about power. The Dems and other America-haters want as many immigrants here as possible, ASAP, to undermine both our culture and the electoral process. 

This started in earnest with the 1965 Immigration Act, and it has worked so well for the Dems that they can taste total control (and this is why they went so berzerk after Trump schlonged Hillary).

posted on 6/25/2020, 12:04:28 PM by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)

__________________________________________________________________

To: headstamp 2

It is extraordinary how all of a sudden those two justices are in favor of judicial minimalism - but only in a case where they agree with the constitutional position - all other rulings can be sweeping and far reaching.

 posted on 6/25/2020, 12:15:20 PM by Republican Wildcat

_______________________________________________________________

To: Ancesthntr

This should have been a 9-0 decision. The powers of the Executive WRT immigrants is clear under federal law - pretty much anything goes in terms of admitting (or not) ANY person for ANY reason. Jimmy Carter even used that power to deport Iranians, and no one put up a fuss then.

The entire immigration fight is about power. The Dems and other America-haters want as many immigrants here as possible, ASAP, to undermine both our culture and the electoral process. This started in earnest with the 1965 Immigration Act, and it has worked so well for the Dems that they can taste total control (and this is why they went so berzerk after Trump schlonged Hillary)....I couldn’t agree more.

posted on 6/25/2020, 12:53:06 PM by Moonman62 

[rickmaynard]

‪#Cartoon of the Day #ninthcircuit #AppealsCourt #MuslimBan #TravelBan‬

#cartoon #muslimban #appeals court #ninth circuit #travel ban

[copblaster]

Ninth Circuit: Building Barriers to Avoid Addressing the Merits

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seems more interested in building barriers to justify failing to address the merits of cases before them than they do in upholding the law. I found that out many years ago. I've had three cases before them so far and almost all of them were decided based on procedural barriers that they claim prevented them from addressing the issues before them. This can be really frustrating for inmates that do not realize that their attorney failed to take advantage of a legal loophole until procedure prevents them from raising the issue. Most recently, I had a habeas corpus claim before them that I filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel. It was argued orally before justices Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and Michael Anello. I filed the petition myself in the district court, but Judge Marco Hernandez dismissed it. Fortunately Hernandez did issue a certificate of appealability (COA) that gave the Ninth Circuit the legal ability to review his decision. COAs are extremely rare and it was a moment of pride for me because many lawyer have argued cases and failed to get as far as I had gotten on my own. COAs can be issued by district courts or courts of appeals, so I still hoped that issued Hernandez did not certify would be heard. Unfortunately for me the Court limited their review to "whether Sullivan’s trial counsel was ineffective in advising Sullivan to plead guilty to a Superseding Information, which omitted the specific intent element of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)...First, Sullivan argues he suffered prejudice because after pleading guilty, counsel did not file a motion to arrest judgment pursuant to the then-existing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 34. Sullivan did not raise this argument in his section 2255 motion, but rather raised it for the first time in his post-judgment motions. The district court declined to issue a COA regarding Sullivan’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Because Sullivan’s Rule 34 argument does not fall within the narrow issue certified by the district court for appeal, this argument is not properly before the Court." My attorney at the time, Per Olson, failed to move the district court to arrest judgement after I pled, but because I was an inmate with no right to counsel during the initial stages of my habeas proceeding, I did not know of the Rule 34 loophole when I filed my petition. They didn't even address whether or not the information properly charged a crime. This is an unfortunate example of the state of the American court system. When you are charged with a crime they hold you without bail, take away your ability to earn an income, force you to rely on court appointed counsel, and take away your ability to consult with counsel after the your appeals are exhausted. They say that when an inmate files a hebeas corpus motion that it is technically a civil, so there is no right to counsel. That could not be more unconstitutional. For criminal defendants life and limb are potentially at stake during habeas corpus proceedings. I think that if counsel had been appointed to help me file my petition that I would not have been barred from raising the argument. The Ninth Circuit also errd on the standard for prejudice. They took the position that if a defendant would have still pled guilty then they were not prejudiced. They fail to recognize cases such as Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) in which post plea counsel was ruled ineffective because effective counsel would have produced a better outcome. I should not have this charge on my record. I do however believe that the lawyer that were eventually appointed to my cases argued them well before the court.#ninthcircuit #richardpaez #carlosbea #michaelanello #perolson http://dlvr.it/R82nnz

#Judges #Appellate

[trumpfeed]

via Twitter

#IFTTT #Twitter

[wearesafec-blog]

9th Circuit rules against travel ban and Trump's Ego Explodes

9th Circuit rules against travel ban and Trump's Ego Explodes #TheResistance #ninthcircuit

The 9th Circuit refused to reinstate President Trump’s unconstitutional travel ban. The decision came unanimously from the three-judge court panel who upheld the decision that Bush appointee John Robart came to last week. Our president like a man-child  took to yelling on Twitter, indicating he will take this to The Supreme Court.   https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457…

View On WordPress

[wmathison]

RT @We_R_TheMedia: "Its The Nature of ISLAM 2 DOMINATE Not Be Dominated 2 Impose Its Law on All Nations & Extend Its Power 2 The Entir… https://t.co/RMTijMjO92

"Its The Nature of ISLAM 2 DOMINATE Not Be Dominated 2 Impose Its Law on All Nations & Extend Its Power 2 The Entire Planet"#ninthcircuit http://pic.twitter.com/5r9hmEYqLp

— Colleen ✨✌✨Take 2 (@We_R_TheMedia) February 8, 2017

via Twitter https://twitter.com/wmathison February 08, 2017 at 06:51PM

#Twitter #tcot #tlot #tgdn

[jediyogalawyer]

How to get out of a Red Light Camera ticket

How to get out of a Red Light Camera ticket

You may have heard the news about my recent successful red light camera appeal. Check it out:

http://up.anv.bz/latest/anvload.html?key=eyJtIjoiYW52IiwicCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJ2IjoiMzEzNTYzMCIsInBsdWdpbnMiOnsiZGZwIjp7ImNsaWVudFNpZGUiOnsiYWRUYWdVcmwiOiJodHRwczovL3B1YmFkcy5nLmRvdWJsZWNsaWNrLm5ldC9nYW1wYWQvYWRzP3N6PTQwMHgzMDAmaXU9LzEyNTIzMjkzL09ybGFuZG9fVFYvd2Z0dl93ZWJfZGVmYXVsdC9uZXdzL2xvY2FsJmltcGw9cyZn…

View On WordPress

#cityoforlando #kelliHastings #ninthcircuit #orlando #orlandostops #redlight #redlightcamera #redlightcameras #rlc #rlcs #scamera #scameras #STOPS #theyogalawyer #ticketclinic #wftv #yogalawyer

[go-redgirl]

Supreme Court sides with Trump in immigrant detention dispute The Hill ^ | March 19, 2019 | Lydia Wheeler

The Supreme Court on Tuesday backed the Trump administration’s ability to detain immigrants with criminal records at any time and hold them indefinitely while they await deportation, even if they served time for their offense years ago.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit’s finding that the mandatory detention requirement for certain immigrants with criminal records applies only if an immigrant is detained by officials as soon as he or she is released from jail.

In delivering the decision, which split the justices along their ideological lines, Justice Samuel Alito said the 9th Circuit’s interpretation conflicts with the plain text and structure of the law Congress created for immigrants who have committed certain dangerous crimes.

“If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,” he said.

“Four other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

Mony Preap, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit the case stems from, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions that qualified him for mandatory detention.

Despite completing his jail time for the drug charges in 2006, he wasn't detained until he was released from jail on a separate, nondeportable offense in 2013.

In a dissenting opinion, which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined, Justice Stephen Breyer said he disagreed with the majority’s reading of the law.

Citing the Constitution, he said he doesn't think Congress intended to deprive people of their liberty for months or years without the possibility of bail if they have long since paid their debt to society.

"I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing," he said.

"In my view, the Court should interpret the words of this statute to reflect Congress’ likely intent, an intent that is consistent with our basic values."

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; 9thcircuitcourt; 9thcircus; criminalaliens; ice; illegalaliens; migrants; nielsenvpreap; ninthcircuit; ninthcircus; scotus

[trumpfeed]

via Twitter

#IFTTT #Twitter