Activist Court Tries to Take Down Trump, and Gowdy Responds
The 9th Circuit is known for its liberal interpretation of the Constitution. It's the go to venue for social justice warriors, because it almost always delivers for them. Their decision to rule against Donald Trump's immigration order is no exception, and liberals are really happy.
Trey Gowdy isn't, and this morning, he offered a blistering response to their decision:
Gowdy said in a statement that no one should be surprised with the ruling that came from the court and that the 9th Circuit “has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible. Unlike the district court order, there is at least a court opinion which can be evaluated.”
“Of particular interest is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s suggestion that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration,” Gowdy continued. “The Court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the Court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a President’s national security conclusions.”
Gowdy said in his statement of the 9th Circuit’s opinion reference to the 2001 case that “Legal permanent residents, non-citizens with current valid visas, non-citizens with expired visas (which were once valid), aliens with no legal standing, aliens who have committed a crime but have not yet been deported and aliens who are not even present in the United States but seek to come are just a few of the categories the Supreme Court will need to determine what process is due, if any.”
Zadvydas v. Davis was a Supreme Court case that essentially mandated the release of thousands of criminal aliens into the United States, two months prior the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The case centered around the long-term detention of two criminal aliens.
Immigration authorities could not find a country who would accept the aliens in question in the case within the statutory 90-day removal period. In an attempt to continue to detain the aliens after 90 days, the government invoked a statute that allows the attorney general the authority to detain an alien for more than 90 days if the AG found it necessary to do so for public safety circumstances.