John Yoo quoted by Chicago Tribune, Feb. 12, 2017
“Simple murder is not a violation of federal law,” he said. “I don’t think the conditions in Chicago have any relationship to federal law.” The only way Chicago’s situation could possibly fall under the Insurrection Act, Yoo said, is if the murders also violated some aspect of federal law, such as acts committed by drug cartels or terrorists.
John Yoo interviewed by WSJ Video: Opinion Journal, Feb. 10, 2017
Essentially, all the Ninth Circuit did was refuse to block a lower trial court judge’s decision that we have to suspend the order so that people aren’t harmed, while the courts take a longer, more normal, deliberate look.”
Melissa Murray interviewed by KQED-TV News, Feb. 10, 2017
“On appeal to the Supreme Court, it’s the same set of questions: whether the government has met its burden to show that the ban should be reinstated, or whether challenger states have shown that there’s a good reason to withhold enforcement of the ban while more information is gathered. … It won’t be the kind of elaborate discussion of merits you would ordinarily see in a case that is squarely about the constitutionality of the order. … In the event that the president wants an order quickly, the Supreme Court might not be the way to go.”
Andrew Bradt interviewed by KPCC-FM, Feb. 10, 2017
“In the near-term, the California part of the 9th Circuit at least, and maybe Washington and Oregon, would still be places where there would be courts in which to challenge President Trump’s orders. In the long term, breaking up the 9th Circuit and reducing its power would certainly reduce the liberal counterweight effect that the court is sometimes able to play.”
John Yoo quoted by Las Vegas Review-Journal, Feb. 9, 2017
“They should have lost. The order was done badly,” University of California at Berkeley law professor and former Bush attorney John C. Yoo agreed. “The government badly defended it in court by claiming the 9th Circuit couldn’t even review the executive order.” Yoo called the ruling “a rebuke.”
John Yoo quoted by Los Angeles Times, Feb. 9, 2017
The inclusion of green-card holders in the travel ban doomed it legally, Yoo said, and the Supreme Court rarely agrees to hear such emergency appeals in any case.
Dan Farber writes for The Hill, Feb. 9, 2017
The regulatory process is very elaborate, and adopting a new regulation is a very expensive, time-consuming process. This executive order effectively triples the costs, because agencies not only have to enact new regulations, but also go through equally complex proceedings to eliminate two old ones. Basically, agencies will be able to propose about a third as many new rules as before.
William Fernholz writes for The Hill, Feb. 9, 2017
The Ninth Circuit, the appeals court for the western United States, the temporary restraining order (TRO), which prevents the government from implementing President Trump’s immigration executive order. It was a short trip to the Ninth Circuit, and the lawyers for the government leave it bruised, though not beaten.
John Yoo quoted by Los Angeles Times, Feb. 9, 2017
Yoo said the 9th Circuit ruling was on less solid ground on other issues: whether the states had standing to sue and whether visa holders had a right to a hearing before their visas were canceled. The administration lost because “it rushed out this order in an ill-considered and haphazard way,” the conservative legal scholar said. A “more cautious, more modest” executive order would have survived legal scrutiny, he said.
John Yoo quoted by Los Angeles Times, Feb. 8, 2017
“Someone has to tell the president that what he is doing is illegal or unconstitutional, even when Trump’s instincts and his political advisors are pushing for it. Sessions is the only person in the administration now who can do that, tell the president no. We will have to see how that plays out.”