re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban

quote:

---

Except that none of that bears much resemblance to what actually happened.

This is what happens when non-lawyers write news articles about judicial decisions. They frick it up.

---

Have to agree with you mostly on this one except for a few points- the article was written by Shannon Bream who does have a law degree and was apparently, at one point, admitted to practice, based on quick googling.

There area lot of legal procedural nuances in these rulings- i.e. whether a stay of a preliminary injunction on appeal should be restricted within the 9th Circus or be nationwide, ability to further develop muh record, etc., and all of that does make the article misleading. So there was not defiance. The 9th Circus invited this outcome.

But the misleading nature of the article does not make the substance of the district court's underlining findings or conclusions of law any less despicable. It is a disgusting power grab and defecation on the separation of powers.

Plus, the speed all of this has occurred is very revealing.

- July 16, 2019: DOJ and DHS publish joint interim final rule that migrants must first apply for asylum in Mexico before applying in US.

- July 17, 2019: Pro-illegal immigrant organizations move for temporary restraining order (converted by consent to preliminary injunction) to prevent order

[How many peaceful migrants must have died on 7/16 by mean orange man's order?]

- July 24, 2019: Court grants motion.

- Aug. 16, 2019: 9th Circuit denies motion to stay (block effects of Tigar's ruling) except within CA, AZ, WA, OR, etc.

- Thurs, September 5, 2019: current motion heard

- Today: Ruling with national implications issued.