Sunday, January 29, 2017


Road trip to Weatherford, Texas was productive.  Glad I got a driver to take me though.


  • At least five judges block Trump's immigration order; more than 4,000 lawyers volunteer

    Jan 30, 2017, 9:05 am CST
  • Judge who set $250K bond for seat-belt violation gets probation in deferred disciplinary agreement

    Jan 30, 2017, 7:00 am CST

  • Judge suspended for jailing indigent defendants over traffic tickets is hired by city law department

    Trump Fires Acting Attorney General

    by jonathanturley
    sally_q-_yatesdonald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedPresident Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates Monday night for "refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States."  As I stated on "Morning Joe" this morning, Trump clearly has the right to fire Yates.  Indeed, Yates' action (and rationale) contradicts long-standing Justice Department policies on such issues.  Despite my personal opposition to this executive order, I believe that Yates was mistaken to take this action and that it does not serve the interests of justice to get this matter before a court for independent review.




    Is The Trump Executive Order on Refugees Unlawful?

    by jonathanturley
    donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedpreviously discussed how President Donald Trump has the advantage in a constitutional challenge of this executive order suspending entry for refugees and imposing special limitations on seven stated countries.  As I have noted, this does not mean that there are not legitimate questions raised, particularly over the express preference to be given "religious minorities" under the order. However, the case laws heavily supports a president's plenary power over such border controls.  There remains however a question over whether the law could be constitutional under a president's inherent authority but still unlawful under statutory authority.  Most of that argument centers on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which bars discrimination based on nationality or place of origin.  There are clearly compelling arguments on both sides of this question, but once again I believe that critics may be overstating the 1965 law as making the executive order facially invalid.  As I have repeatedly stated since this executive order was signed, I believe it was a terrible mistake, poorly executed, and inimical to our values as a nation.  However, legal analysis by a court should not be influenced by such personal viewpoints.  The question is solely whether the president is barred statutorily from taking this action.


    No comments:

    Subscribe via email

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner