Ninth Circuit, The Battle Of Leading Legal Minds Continues
Mar 20, 2017 07:45 AM EDT
If there is one series of fight people seem to take interest on, that is definitely one coming from the Ninth Circuit. The fight pits leading legal minds against each other on one of the mega-issues of the day - the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's immigration orders.
On Wednesday last week, the Ninth Circuit declined to reconsider the three-judge panel opinion that upheld the blocking of President Trump's first version of immigration order, according to Above The Law. Judge Jay Bybee, one of them, filed a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing that the Ninth Circuit sitting should have vacated the panel opinion.
Meanwhile, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal lion of the Ninth Circuit observed Trump's criticism of the judiciary. He said that he is proud to be a part of a judicial system that is independent and courageous, which he believes protects the constitutional rights of all people, despite any efforts that try to weaken or diminish the system.
While the judges had given their opinions, Judge Alex Kozinski, one of the Ninth Circuit's leading conservatives said, "We could have approved the injunction as to the relatively few who have lawful status in the United States and allowed the executive order to cover everyone else." It was not surprising that the barnburner among the new opinions was Judge Kozinski's, according to the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Bybee's dissental and Judge Reinhardt's concurrence are joined by a dissent from Judge Kozinski, focused on the Establishment Clause, amongst other judges like Judge Bea and Judge Marsha Berzon. The night's order at the Ninth Circuit reached conclusion with a hint of exhaustion, "No further opinions will be filed."
In the coming weeks and months, judges around the country who will be confronting these issues will surely appreciate having a broader range of opinions. If these issues percolate up to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices will also be grateful for the robust debate that would never have happened if everyone on the Ninth Circuit had kept quiet with the original opinion.