It's not just 'Obama judges'. Here are Republican appointees who have ruled against Trump
President Donald Trump is railing against federal courts in the Ninth
Circuit, describing them as 'very unfair' after a federal judge in
Northern Calif. blocked Trump's emergency restrictions on asylum claims.
(Nov. 20)
AP
Roberts, in a rare
rebuke of a sitting president, said the country doesn't have "Obama
judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges."
"What
we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level
best to do equal right to those appearing before them," Roberts said in
a statement. "That independent judiciary is something we should all be
thankful for."
Trump responded to Roberts by saying the nation does "indeed have Obama judges."
But
while there have been rulings by judges appointed by Obama, a number of
major rulings against the Trump administration have come from
conservative-appointed judges. Here are five that came out this year:
DACA
In April, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates
became the third federal judge to rule against the Trump
Administration's plight to end the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals program, known as DACA.
Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, was the first Republican-appointed judge to rule against the measure, according to Politico.
Bates wrote in his 60-page ruling
that the reasoning given by the Department of Homeland Security to end
the program, which protects immigrants who came to the U.S. as children,
was "arbitrary"
"The Department failed adequately
to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful," Bates wrote.
"Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation
risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to
sustain termination of the DACA program."
CNN's win on revoking a reporter's badge
A judge appointed by President Trump ruled against the White House earlier this month, allowing CNN reporter to have his press badge reinstated.
The White House revoked White
House correspondent Jim Acosta's press badge after he got in a tense
exchange with Trump where the president called him a "rude, terrible
person."
More: Donald Trump says he may revoke press credentials for other reporters, not just CNN's Jim Acosta
White
House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the rare move was a result
of both Acosta's behavior and him yanking back when a White House intern
tried to take his microphone.
U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly,
a Trump appointee, granted a request for Acosta's credentials to be
returned ruling that the White House had violated Acosta's Fifth
Amendment right to due process by suspending his press badge without
explanation or a chance for CNN to appeal.
The White House ended up backing down from the fight and new rules were rolled out. Acosta's press badge was returned.
Mueller's legitimacy
The
president has long criticized special counsel Robert Mueller and his
investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Trump has
called the investigation a "witch hunt" and earlier this month said the
inner workings of Mueller's investigation were "a total mess."
"They
have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are
screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up
with the answers they want," Trump tweeted. "They are a disgrace to our
Nation" and "gang of Democrat thugs," he added.
In
June, the president wrote on Twitter Mueller's appointment was "totally
UNCONSTITUTIONAL" but a federal judge appointed by Trump disagreed.
Mueller's
appointment and legitimacy have been challenged several times over the
course of the two-year investigation, including by a Russian company
accused of meddling in the election by posing as Americans, launching
social media campaigns to pick at Americans' political division and
staging rallies.
The company, Concord Management
and Consulting, sought to have charges dropped by claiming Mueller's
appointment wasn't Constitutional. But U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by Trump, disagreed, according to CNN.
"The
appointment does not violate core separation-of-powers principles,"
Friedrich wrote in an August opinion. "Nor has the Special Counsel
exceeded his authority under the appointment order by investigating and
prosecuting Concord."
Separation of families at the border
The
Trump administration's controversial and hardline immigration policy
that led to the separation of immigrant families was reversed by a
federal judge appointed by George W. Bush.
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw,
based in San Diego, ordered the Trump administration earlier this year
to reunite children who had been taken from their parents when crossing
the U.S. southern border.
President Bush nominated Sabraw to the federal bench in 2003, and he won unanimous Senate confirmation.
Sabraw ruled that the Trump administration was "100 percent"
responsible for reuniting the families and locating migrant parents who
were deported after they were separated from their children.
"The
reality is that for every parent who is not located, there will be a
permanently orphaned child, and that is 100 percent the responsibility
of the administration," Sabraw said. "The government has the sole burden
and responsibility and obligation to make (reunifications) happen."
He also
scolded administration officials for moving so slowly to track down the
deported parents. He cited an estimate that only about a dozen of the
parents have been found in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador,
asking, "Is that true?"
More: Who is Dana Sabraw? 5 things to know about judge who ordered reunification of immigrant families
Stopping sanctuary cities
This summer, Judge John Mendez ruled against the Trump administration's attempts to stop California's sanctuary city practices.
Mendez,
nominated by George W. Bush in 2007, denied a request by the
administration to halt California's practices not cooperating with
federal law officials on immigration policies and, instead, providing a
safe haven for these individuals.
"This order
hopefully will not be viewed through a political lens and this court
expresses no views on the soundness of the policies or statutes involved
in this lawsuit," Mendez wrote in the ruling.
"There is no place for politics in our judicial system and this one
opinion will neither define nor solve the complicated immigration issues
currently facing our nation."
In his
ruling, Mendez wrote in a 60-page impassioned ruling that elected
officials should "set aside the partisan and polarizing politics
dominating the current immigration debate and work in a cooperative and
bi-partisan fashion toward drafting and passing legislation that
addresses this critical political issue."
He added: "Our Nation deserves it. Our Constitution demands it."
Keine Kommentare