Donald J. Trump, Twitter, Feb 9, 2017

It seems in little need of recapitulation, but the Executive Order 13769, otherwise known as “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” has been living a charmed and distorted life.  It sought to ban, for 90 days, the entry of nationals into the United States from seven countries.  The order was subsequently challenged by two states as unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.

Its progenitor, the now foamingly livid US President Donald J. Trump, was always labouring under the impression that it would pass muster in its entirety. But then again, The Donald was unaware about the restraining niceties of the US court system.

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had to entertain themselves with yet another appeal from the Trump administration on the urgency of the EO, this time against the decision made by District Judge James J. Robart of the Western District of Washington State to grant a temporary restraining order.

The Executive Order’s enforcement was suspended by the good judge, who deemed it necessary to make his order nationwide in application.  Apoplectic, Trump charged Judge Robart with a lack of competence, suggesting that any deaths resulting to US citizens from this action be placed squarely on his judicial head.  A groan was duly registered in the separation of powers.

Three factors caught the attention of the appeals panel: whether the administration had showed that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal; the extent or degree of hardship caused by the stay or its denial; and that ever pressing issue of the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

Even reading this decision, the EO seems linguistically sloppy, misguided and even hallucinatory in seeing threats and fears.  The hallmark of terrorist attacks on US soil, those of September 11, 2001, is seen as a marker, the symbolic point where all justifications issue. Since that date, “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes”.  It followed that the United States had to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The global situation was truly a panic-inducing one, even if some it had been occasioned by the mischief-making of the US war machine.  Many a failed state has had its origins in the carelessly murderous musings of the Pentagon and White House.

The grindstone of war and devastation, according to the EO, globally placed the US at risk, sombrely making Trump reflect that, “Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.”

The judges of the Ninth Circuit did not waste time diving into the hardship caused.  The government’s case was not being well received.  The Executive Order saw thousands of visas cancelled, hundreds of travellers with such visas prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the US or denied entry at point of arrival.  Instances of detention were also noted.

On the issue of injury, the States had made out that their public universities had been affected, notably in the fields of teaching and their “research missions”.  Students and researchers who were nationals of the seven countries on the banned list were specifically mentioned as being harmed, be it in terms of their study, collaborative ventures, or seeing families. “We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order.”

The Executive Order also fell foul of the due process clause. Trump’s lawyers had not demonstrated sufficiently that the Fifth Amendment had been followed. There had been, for instance, no notice or a hearing prior to restrictions on particular individuals for travel. The government’s assumption here – a point of some alarm to the judges – was that “most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.”

The muddle became apparent in the Order’s lack of discrimination on the status of the traveller.  Did lawful permanent residents have sufficient due process rights when re-entering the US?  Seemingly not.  Had the government provided lawful permanent residents a “constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry”? Again, the answer was no.

The court also showed reluctance in limiting the scope of the restraining order to lawful permanent residents. Nor did the geographic scope of the restraining order require curtailing. To do so would result in a “fragmented immigration policy”. Judge Robart must have been grinning at this point.

Even as the Trump administration’s arguments were being given the full heave-ho, the judges could not resist making a point that the government’s lawyers had done little other than reiterate the need to combat terrorism as a government priority.  Despite being pressed by the bench, and by the lower District Court to adduce evidence that the US was at such immediate and dire risk, nothing was forthcoming.

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack on the United States.” In place of evidence, an impetuous position had been assumed by Trump’s team: the court could not review that decision at all.  Judges often find such dismissive positions uncomfortable, preferring to wade in.  The President, much to his consternation, will have to flog this horse, deadened by three failures, a touch longer.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email:

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B. Become a Patron at Patreon Subscribe to our Telegram channel



  1. Bill Malcolm says:

    This is what happens when rank amateurs with no understanding of due process, but with a wilfully uninformed idea of the power of the executive, decide to just plough on regardless into a hole of jingoistic logic, whacked-out ideology, and the idea that whatever the prez says goes.

    I do not excuse the American people either. On various non-political online forums I inhabit, otherwise intelligent people go on about voting for Trump, yet apparently have no idea of their own country’s history, both good and bad. It’s laughable to read people’s meanderings, with logic about at the level of a 7 or 8 year old, being proud as punch of Trump and Bannon. On reflection, they’re probably not that bright, just brainwashed by the constant repetition of the oath of allegiance they mindlessly repeated twice a day at school, and cannot perceive loyalty as being more more than saluting the flag and saying yessir to whatever stupid idea their Chief Executive comes up with.

    On a more practical level, things would have been no better under Clinton, just done on the quiet and in a more orderly fashion. It was said over and over again during the election that both candidates were rubbish. Yet I see no sign that Americans are organizing anew politically. Same old, same old. Just a few marches and protests that nobody takes the slightest notice of. That is the more disquieting lack of news. Apparently Americans are happy being frogmarched into future doom, dragging the rest of us along with them.

  2. K SHESHU BABU says:

    The legal wrangle in US is at its peak. Trump is trying to trespass legal constraints in any way possible. He might even appoint his stooges in future so that his path would become clear without any hindrance.