At Lawnewz by Robert Barnes --
On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking
the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from
certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle
federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for
the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an
order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom,
whose position is likely to ultimately win?
Just a quick review of the two written orders can tell you which one is likely to win. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid
of almost any reference to any precedent, which is the “evidence” for
lawyers on the law. Add in comments made by the Seattle judge verbally,
and if any aspect of that is correct, the Seattle judge’s opinion will
lose, and Trump’s position will win.
Both judges appeared to reject the position of many critics: both
appeared to reject the position the First Amendment prohibits the order--