Today’s Editors’ Choice
- Hans von Spakovsky: Trump’s Immigration Order Took a Second Hit. Now SCOTUS Must Get Involved.
- Ann Coulter: The ‘Resistance’ Goes Live-Fire
- Victor Davis Hanson: Can a Divided America Survive?
To view all of today’s opinion, click here.
Opinion in Brief
Hans von Spakovsky: “No one should be surprised that a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, made up of three judges appointed by President Bill Clinton, upheld the injunction on Monday against President Donald Trump’s revised executive order temporarily halting entry from six terrorist safe haven nations. … Despite this latest pronouncement of the 9th Circuit, the president’s actions are lawful and fully within the constitutional authority delegated to him by Congress. As five dissenting judges of the 9th Circuit pointed out in a previous decision on the executive order, the judges who are ruling against the president are confounding ‘Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent,’ which makes clear that ‘when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, [the courts] must defer to the judgment of the political branches.’ The judges who issued Monday’s decision are not deferring as they are required to do, and neither did the judges in the 4th Circuit decision. The only branch of the government that is acting outside its constitutional authority is the judicial branch, not the executive branch. Hopefully, all of that will soon change. … The Supreme Court should take this case, hear arguments as quickly as possible (before the end of June), and issue a decision before the justices leave for the summer. As the government says, there is no doubt that this executive order ‘has been the subject of passionate political debate.’ But whatever one’s views, ‘the precedent set by this case for the judiciary’s proper role in reviewing the president’s national security and immigration authority will transcend this debate, this order, and this constitutional moment.’”