President Trump has met more resistance in the courts in his first few months in office than any president in recent history, but he just caught a major break.
Previously, federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland both issued injunctions on his travel restrictions to six nations lacking stable governments, citing rhetoric used on the campaign trail and completely ignoring statutory law granting the president express authority to regulate immigration. However, at least one federal judge appears to have a brain, and earlier on Friday he ruled in favor of the president, thus exposing the other judges as nothing more than activists legislating from the bench.
From the Daily Caller:
Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion that “the President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He said that the executive order makes no mention of religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
The Hawaiian federal judge who knocked down the executive order cited past statements from Trump on the campaign trail talking about a “Muslim ban.” Judge Trenga, however, wrote, “In that regard, the Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter.’”
While the judge’s decision will have little effect on the travel restrictions, it all but guarantees that the matter will make it to the Supreme Court, where it should pass unanimously if the sitting justices rule on the law rather than the president’s intent, as they’re supposed to.