#ninthcircuit

For Immediate Release June 12, 2017

Contact: Brett Schuster, Communications Manager, [email protected], 202-775-9555

WASHINGTON — The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) applauds the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s per curiam ruling maintaining a lower court’s block on President Trump’s March 6, 2017, revised executive order barring individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees from entering the United States.

In March 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson of the District of Hawaii issued a preliminary injunction on the travel restrictions in this lawsuit, State of Hawaii v. Trump, which was brought by the state and individuals impacted by the executive order.

Today’s unanimous Ninth Circuit opinion affirmed the plaintiffs’ right to challenge the executive order and upheld their statutory claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ assertion that the President’s broad authority on the entry of foreign individuals has constraints, and that the executive order exceeds the scope of the authority delegated to the President by Congress under the INA, including the statute’s prohibition against nationality-based discrimination.

On April 21, NAPABA filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, supported by 43 NAPABA affiliates, after joining this first challenge to the revised executive order with an amicus brief filed in the district court. NAPABA’s briefs describe the history of the statutory exclusion of Asians and Pacific Islanders under early U.S. immigration law — including the first federal law to ban a group of people from entering the country on the basis of race — prior to the passage of the INA of 1965, which outlawed nationality-based discrimination. NAPABA argued that President Trump’s revised order, with its anti-Muslim underpinnings, violates this unambiguous prohibition on discrimination established by Congress.

NAPABA awaits the decision on the government’s petitions to the Supreme Court in both this case and the parallel case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, and will continue to work to ensure the executive order is permanently struck down by the courts.

Read NAPABA’s amicus briefs in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and before the district court here.

Read the March 6, 2017, statement of NAPABA and the South Asian Bar Association – North America, joined by 14 affiliates, against the revised executive order.

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of almost 50,000 attorneys and approximately 75 national, state, and local Asian Pacific American bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government.            

How to get out of a Red Light Camera ticket

You may have heard the news about my recent successful red light camera appeal. Check it out:

http://up.anv.bz/latest/anvload.html?key=eyJtIjoiYW52IiwicCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJ2IjoiMzEzNTYzMCIsInBsdWdpbnMiOnsiZGZwIjp7ImNsaWVudFNpZGUiOnsiYWRUYWdVcmwiOiJodHRwczovL3B1YmFkcy5nLmRvdWJsZWNsaWNrLm5ldC9nYW1wYWQvYWRzP3N6PTQwMHgzMDAmaXU9LzEyNTIzMjkzL09ybGFuZG9fVFYvd2Z0dl93ZWJfZGVmYXVsdC9uZXdzL2xvY2FsJmltcGw9cyZn…

Unprecedented Orlando Red Light Camera Challenge

Believed to be an unprecedented challenge to Orlando’s red light camera law, initial briefs have been filed in the Ninth Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, that seek to bar the use of red light cameras for the entire county.

It turns out that Orlando’s red light cameras are run and maintained by a private company, “American Traffic Solutions” (aka “ATS”). ATS makes nearly halfthe profits…

(1) I WANT TO DO THAT SO MUCH. I want to get up there and make my arguments and politely but firmly demolish opposing counsel's arguments and when one of the judges asks "Well, what about Stubbs-Danielson," respond "Your Honor, Brink controls here rather than Stubbs-Danielson" and then explain why.

(2) Have a strong argument. I mean, obviously.  Most of the cases seemed more or less balanced on oral argument, in the sense that the judges asked tough questions of both sides and the responses each attorney gave were reasonably strong, but in a few the case seemed so wildly imbalanced that one side would sit down with five to seven minutes of argument time left, and the other side would wince along trying to answer the judge's questions.