Today's episode revisits a question we tackled way back in Episode #16, namely, whether President Trump has the authority to enact his Muslim Ban. We begin with an examination of the recent CREW lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that President Trump has violated the Emoluments Clause. Is that lawsuit likely to prevail? What could it accomplish? Listen and find out. In the main segment, we consider not only the recent Trump Executive Order restricting the entry of aliens from seven majority-Muslim nations (the "Muslim Ban"). We address questions of legality and constitutionality, as well as break down the recent injunction handed down by the Southern District of New York in response to the ACLU's lawsuit. After our main segment, we turn to a question from a conservative listener about abortion and whether Roe v. Wade was an "activist" decision. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #8 about a landowner's duties regarding trespassers who accidentally fall into the landowner's murder lake. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links
- The CREW lawsuit is here.
- We reference two decisions on the "political question" doctrine: Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) and Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
- We initially discussed the Muslim Ban way back in OA Episode #16, which is worth another listen!
- The authorizing statute (the "1952 Law") is 8 USC §1182(f).
- The "1965 Law" is 8 USC §1152(a).
- In light of those two provisions, we think you can spot the errors in David Bier's op-ed in the New York Times.
- I wrote a lot on Facebook about the ACLU lawsuit and the injunction handed down by the court on Saturday, so you can check that out if you want the relevant documents.