On James Robart's Travel Ban Ruling

The video of the hearing can be found here:

http://uscourtspd.edgesuite.net/mm/flvmedia/3697/t/p/z/tpze0f9r_z5zj8rio_h264_548K.mp4?cid=3697&aid=3279887&afid=6809999&apid=1032989&programid=4175023.

Although I'm no legal expert, I have to say that I got away with a very clear impression of the judgment at hand.

1. Standing.

James Robart's ruling makes a mockery of Standing laws, since he's setting a precedent without even trying to decide the issue at hand and instead calling the legal situation on Standing "murky".

If that is so in his opinion, how can he possibly anticipate whether the lawsuit filed by the State of Washington has a chance of success or not?

The defendant is right to point out that indirect damages cannot be accepted by the court as grounds for standing without allowing States Standing on everything.

However, in my opinion, the true point of this issue isn't even raised once in this hearing, namely that the damages to the State must be of a legally explicit nature, which for the state as proprietor, for example, would require that the State holds some rights concerning the attendance of the people blocked by the travel ban, that is allowing the state to sue or otherwise demand satisfaction from these people for not attending on a legal basis, as is the case, for example, with slaves owned by the State.

Otherwise it is these people themselves who have standing, but not the university who has invited them or is expecting their services, because it is not enough that the university expects their services, it must hold a claim to them.

Comment on the legal situation.

I personally abhor standing laws, which, by definition, have no other purpose than to allow the law not to be spoken, based on either an extrajudicial deal with the party who has suffered damages or the successful extrajudicial prevention of that party from ever being heard in court, as would be the case here and has been the case in some of the most scandalous legal decisions in U.S. history, like the evacuation of the so called Civilized Tribes.

But in a way that makes it all the clearer what the legal situation is: Since the Standing laws are evil incarnate, respecting their spirit means to grant standing only if it can't be avoided.

I don't think that there is such a thing as the right to reach an agreement outside of court, if the offence is such that the society has a justified interest in removing a person full of contempt of the law from its midst. Which is the case here, but more on that in the following.

2. The rights of non-citizens.

Since non-citizens who have the right to legally live in the United States have been granted the right to a fair trial the travel ban in the form it has been applied has violated that right and invoking national security in an obviously absurd manner, banning invited professors from holding lectures, does not suspend it.

Comment on the legal situation.

If this was any different, the United States could not possibly call themselves a nation of the Rule of Law.

3. The requirements for an injunction.

Those requirements are rather clear: irreparable damages or national interest on top of the clear merit of the case made.

This is not the case here. I already commented on the Standing. People aren't dying and as long as they aren't dead, they can demand reparations. Neither are they that seriously injured that the adequacy of any reparation would be in question. And the national interest cannot be interpreted in a way that lifts the division of power between the three branches of government. For a judge it is only proper to consider the aspects of national interest that concern the functioning of the State institutions and the travel ban, as opposed to judge James Robart's ruling, is no threat to it.

Actually, in the context of the current "fight the power" rhetoric, judge Robart's ruling borders on treason.

Comment on the legal situation.

The spirit of the high requirements for an injunction is not evilness, but cruelty - and here I am in full agreement.

There is a very good reason why a judge is supposed to be cruel, namely so that he does not become a part of the public discussion.

If the government issues orders that are outrageous, and the travel ban in the form it has been applied is outrageous, it is the responsibility of the courts to let this outrageousness bloom into full disgust, so as to offer the press the best possible arguments available to let the public reconsider its positions on which it has elected said government. The public is to be informed, not educated or enlightened or therapized.

Of course, this assumes a working press, which in the current situation is a point of contention. At least the Swiss press is doing its job, as evidenced by this article by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/us-dekret-gegen-muslimische-laender-trump-hindert-eth-forscherin-an-einreise-ld.143458

The lack of similar articles in the American press is a reason for systemic concern, on which a judge could build a case to act in the national interest, but he would have to do just that and judge Robart didn't. It is imperative to explain the danger and name the culprits. And if a judge feels that he would look silly doing this, he has to stay quite. The situation as it is now is worse than it was, in terms of precedent and in terms of the direction that the public discussion is taking.