Liberal appeals court faces Trump's wrath and Supreme Court reversals
A lone protester holds a sign in February protesting President Trump's travel ban outside the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. (Photo: Jeff Chiu  AP)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will wade into a political battle between President Trump and the nation's most liberal appeals court this fall by hearing four cases at the start of its upcoming term that the administration wants overturned.
Tops on the list is Trump's temporary travel ban aimed at immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugees. It was struck down by the 9th Circuit appeals court based in San Francisco  as well as the 4th Circuit appeals court in Richmond. The justices partially reinstated the ban in June and will hear oral arguments Oct. 10.
The last case pits decisions made by the 9th and 7th Circuit appeals courts against the 5th Circuit's ruling that forced arbitration clauses in employee contracts do not violate federal law. The 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the workers. In an unusual move  the Justice Department under  Trump  has switched sides and now favors employers.
 Trump  has derided the California-based court ever since  its  judges ruled against an earlier version of  his  travel ban in February.  He  stepped up  his  criticism by calling for the circuit to be broken up after a federal district judge in California — who does not sit on the appeals court — temporarily blocked the president's order cutting funds to sanctuary cities in April.
“First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!” Trump tweeted in April.
Arizona Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain have proposed splitting it into two circuits  something Trump has endorsed but Democrats and liberal interest groups oppose.
"The simple fact is that  calls by President Trump and Senate Republicans to split the Ninth Circuit  are simply a political response to decisions  they  don’t like ” Sen. Dianne Feinstein  D-Calif.  the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee  said.
• A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld a federal district court judge's ruling in Hawaii that the travel ban was unconstitutional. The panel did not rule on religious grounds  as other courts had done. Instead  it said  Trump  exceeded  his  power to regulate immigration.
• In Jennings v. Rodriguez  the appeals court ruled that immigrants facing deportation are entitled to bond hearings at least every six months. In January  however   Trump  ended the "catch and release" policy that required such hearings. The justices likely were tied 4-4 on the case and rescheduled it for the second day of the new term.
" President Trump  has led the recent charge to split the Ninth Circuit because  he  perceives it to be hostile to  his  unconstitutional agenda " the letter said. "Such results-driven considerations should not dictate the structure of the judiciary. Allowing this ideological campaign to overhaul the judicial branch threatens the integrity and independence of the judicial system."
A lone protester holds a sign in February protesting [TGT]'s travel ban outside the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. (Photo: Jeff Chiu  AP)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will wade into a political battle between President Trump and the nation's most liberal appeals court this fall by hearing four cases at the start of its upcoming term that the administration wants overturned.
Tops on the list is [TGT]'s temporary travel ban aimed at immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugees. It was struck down by the 9th Circuit appeals court based in San Francisco  as well as the 4th Circuit appeals court in Richmond. The justices partially reinstated [TGT] in June and will hear oral arguments Oct. 10.
The last case pits decisions made by the 9th and 7th Circuit appeals courts against the 5th Circuit's ruling that forced arbitration clauses in employee contracts do not violate federal law. The 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the workers. In an unusual move  the Justice Department under  [TGT]has switched sides and now favors employers.
 [TGT]has derided the California-based court ever since  [TGT]  judges ruled against an earlier version of  [TGT]  travel ban in February.  [TGT]  stepped up  [TGT]  criticism by calling for the circuit to be broken up after a federal district judge in California — who does not sit on the appeals court — temporarily blocked the president's order cutting funds to sanctuary cities in April.
“First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!” [TGT] tweeted in April.
Arizona Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain have proposed splitting it into two circuits  something [TGT] has endorsed but Democrats and liberal interest groups oppose.
"The simple fact is that  calls by President Trump and Senate Republicans to split the Ninth Circuit  are simply a political response to decisions  they  don’t like ” Sen. Dianne Feinstein  D-Calif.  the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee  said.
• A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld a federal district court judge's ruling in Hawaii that the travel ban was unconstitutional. The panel did not rule on religious grounds  as other courts had done. Instead  it said  [TGT]  exceeded  his  power to regulate immigration.
• In Jennings v. Rodriguez  the appeals court ruled that immigrants facing deportation are entitled to bond hearings at least every six months. In January  however   [TGT]ended the "catch and release" policy that required such hearings. The justices likely were tied 4-4 on the case and rescheduled it for the second day of the new term.
[TGT]has led the recent charge to split the Ninth Circuit because  [TGT]  perceives it to be hostile to  [TGT]  unconstitutional agenda " the letter said. "Such results-driven considerations should not dictate the structure of the judiciary. Allowing this ideological campaign to overhaul the judicial branch threatens the integrity and independence of the judicial system."