Headquartered in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeal. It houses 29 active judgeships. According to the most current count, the Ninth Circuit has among the highest percentage of sitting judges appointed by Democrat presidents and is considered the most liberal court. Of those cases reheard by the Supreme Court 79% of 9th Circuit rulings are overturned.
Recently in the news this court upheld a temporary restraining order of the Trump administration travel ban from 6 nations known to export terrorists. Although there are 29 judges, only three heard the case against the Trump administration travel ban; Judges William Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee, Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, and Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee.
Below is an article stating the opinion of other judges among the 9th Circuit who strongly disagree with the ruling.
[Source: Five 9th Circuit Judges Dish Out Ruthless Take Down to Anti-Trump Travel Ban Decision, by Robert Barnes]
[From the Barnes article] Five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban. The five judges included the famed, and most respected intellectual amongst the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski. The others included Jay Bybee, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta. Nobody other than the original panel came to the defense of the original panel decision, a less than promising start for future approvals of district court interference in Presidential immigration policy.
… The five panel jurists noted the deep legal problems with the (original) panel’s order: its a-historicity, it’s abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights. Mirroring much of the Boston judge’s decision, the five judges then detail and outline what other critics, skeptics and commentators have noted of the prior panel decision, including critical commentary from liberal law professors and scribes Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Jeffrey Toobin. The original 3-judge panel “neglected or overlooked critical cases by the Supreme Court and by our making clear that when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, we must defer to the judgment of the political branches.” Of particular note, the five panel judges note how the 3-judge panel decision in “compounding its omission” of Supreme Court decisions and relevant sister Circuit precedents, also “missed all of our own cases” on the subject. The 5 judges conclude the panel engaged in a “clear misstatement of law”…
Indeed, these judges go much further in their condemnation of the original ruling. Interested parties can read the entire Barnes article for further information.
And thanks to HP for sending to me.