The rights of State Universities (to not be inconvenienced) outweighed the rights of US Citizens to be protected from terrorists.

The 9th Circuit Court usurps its Constitutional authority, effectively taking over national security in their ruling to uphold the lower court’s suspension of a travel ban from seven dangerous countries. The three-judge panel (Judges Richard R. Clifton, William Canby and Michelle T. Friedland ) has effectively given a green light for terrorists to pour across our borders. This court is playing with American lives and any blood that follows will be on their hands.

Not only has the 9th Circuit overridden the Executive Office, they have effectively overridden Congress as well. Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the President “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The courts are clearly out-of-control and we no longer have three equal branches of government with this being the latest of many out-of-bound decisions by the courts. Americans have truly become subjects of those who wear robes.

The seven nations identified in President Donald Trump’s travel ban were also “identified by the Obama administration as the seven most dangerous countries in the world in regard to harboring terrorists,”  as previously stated White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

The seven countries included in the Executive Order which implemented the temporary ban are:

Syria
Iraq
Iran
Sudan
Libya
Yemen
Somalia

Considering there are 50 Muslim countries in the world, the continuous claims of Main Stream Media (MSM) that this is a ban on Muslims, is blatantly dishonest (#FakeNews).

The full 9th Circuit Court brief can be read by clicking here.  This is the synopsis of their decision:

To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.

In regards to Standing, it all centers on the rights of State Universities to not be inconvenienced. This is the mechanism by which the court found the “authority” to assert itself, as the brief states:

The Government argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the States have no standing to sue. We have an independent obligation to ascertain our jurisdiction…

The States argue that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities, which the parties do not dispute are branches of the States under state law.

Specifically, the States allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order’s effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries. These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit. Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.