Ninth Circuit Affirms Injunction Blocking Trump Travel Ban 2.0

On Monday, a Ninth Circuit panel mostly upheld the preliminary injunction against the Trump travel ban. Notably, the court did three things which were ostensibly designed with an inevitable Supreme Court showdown in mind: 1) it did not reach the constitutional issues, instead relying entirely on statutory grounds; 2) it struck down the ban without relying on Trump’s campaign statements, and 3) it slightly narrowed the scope of the injunction. These are all important, as will be set forth below.

I. Taking The (Statutory) Road Less Travelled

Much of the buzz about the travel ban has dealt with its constitutionality – whether it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, the travel ban has also been challenged on statutory grounds. While the Fourth Circuit’s ruling addressed only the constitutional issues and did not reach the statutory issues (as did the Ninth Circuit panel in the travel ban 1.0 case), the Ninth Circuit’s ruling this week did just the opposite. It was the first appeals court decision on either travel ban to address only the statutory arguments.

This is important because it lets the Supreme Court do three things that it loves to do: let issues “percolate” in the lower courts before taking them, exercise constitutional avoidance, and avoid sweeping devisions with unwanted or unintended consequences.

A. It’s Time For The Percolator

First, the court loves to let lower courts weigh in on big issues first. For some reason, every Supreme Court analyst and their mother refers to this as lower court “percolation”. Essentially, what lower court “percolation” means is that the Supreme Court does not like taking cases until at least one appeals court decides it first. It is quite likely that the Supreme Court would have wanted the thoughts of the lower courts on the statutory issue, but prior to this week no appeals court had decided either travel ban on statutory grounds. That has now changed, the statutory issue has been percolated, and the Supreme Court is now ready for its morning coffee.

B. Avoidance Like the Plague

Second, the court loves to avoid deciding constitutional issues when it can. Similarly, the court typically seeks to avoid controversial or deeply political issues, which it fears may affect its legitimacy. A ruling on statutory grounds would let the Supreme Court avoid a sweeping constitutional ruling and also partially mitigate the inevitable political fallout from its decision. Thus, the Ninth Circuit has provided the Supreme Court with a roadmap to strike down the travel ban while doing so on narrow, more palatable terms.

C. “We Write Some Words…”

Relatedly, the Supreme Court also tends to avoid issuing sweeping opinions with unforeseen or unwanted ramifications beyond the facts at hand. As Justice Breyer stated during oral argument in another case this year, “[w]e write some words…. The problem is other people will read those words, and there are all kinds of things that happen…” This is the Supreme Court’s general concern in a nutshell – that its rationale will be applied to circumstances well beyond just the facts of the particular case being decided.

A broad ruling on the constitutional issue would then apply to many other contexts, from subsequent presidents’ immigration decisions to equal protection claims generally. Trump’s presidency, obviously, is quite different than most presidencies; the Supreme Court will not want its opinion here to hamstring future presidents in engaging in run-of-the-mill immigration decisions or national security determinations. Essentially, the trick is to strike down the travel ban (if it is so inclined), while limiting the applicability of this ruling to different contexts. That is easier said than done.

II. Trump’s Campaign Statements

The issue of unwanted consequences also arises when discussing Trump’s campaign statements. Unlike the Fourth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit did not rely on Trump’s campaign statements in striking down the travel ban. There is a very real concern that the court’s reliance on Trump’s campaign statements will open the doors to using campaign statements against public officials in all sorts of litigation pertaining to government decision-making. The Supreme Court will be loathe to weaponize campaign statements by political candidates, and it will avoid using Trump’s campaign statements entirely if it can. To that end, the Ninth Circuit omitted such references. Again, this signals to the Supreme Court that it can strike down the ban while staying out of the thorniest part of the thicket.

III. Narrowing the Injunction

Lastly, the Ninth Circuit narrowed the scope of the lower court’s injunction, in that it now permits the White House to conduct an internal review of visa vetting procedures. This review served as the facial reason for the ban, which was to last 90 days (and 120 days for the Syrian refugee program) while the review was conducted.

Today, the clock begins ticking anew. At this point, there is no evidence that such a review ever began in the first place, but the government may have gotten lucky when it was barred from doing so by the District of Hawaii. Now, that excuse melts away, and it will be incumbent on the government to begin that vetting review in earnest. In the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs will certainly argue that if the ban was really about the review process – and not just pretext for banning Muslims – then the review would have begun immediately and would already be concluded. If there is little or no evidence that such a review has taken place at the time of Supreme Court briefing or oral argument, then the government’s stated rationale for the ban will be destroyed.

This aspect of the ruling is also important because keeping the injunction as-is would have certainly given the Supreme Court a good reason to grant certiorari. Barring the President from internally reviewing visa vetting procedures – which does not adversely affect anyone in and of itself – was something that didn’t make much sense. Although the Supreme Court is likely going to grant cert anyway, there is now one fewer reason to do so.

-Ryan

Lee v. U.S.: Plea Bargains, Deportation, and Very, Very Strange Bedfellows

Present political situation aside, America is pretty awesome. To quote our first treasury secretary, it’s the land “where even orphan immigrants can leave their fingerprints and rise up.” And that is why the case of Lee v. U.S. is so interesting: it asks, when faced with overwhelming odds of conviction and automatic deportation, is it ever rational for a criminally-charged lawful permanent resident to risk trial in a Hail Mary attempt to avoid deportation? According to Petitioner Jae Lee, the answer is yes. The U.S. government, however, disagrees. The case will be argued at the Supreme Court this week.

At 13 years old, Jae Lee moved from South Korea with his parents. For whatever reason, while he maintained legal permanent residency, he never obtained his U.S. citizenship. Lee developed a drug problem and in 2009 was arrested and charged with possession of ecstasy with an intent to distribute.

When contemplating a potential plea bargain, Lee made clear to his attorney that his primary priority was avoiding deportation, even at the expense of a shorter sentence. His attorney incorrectly advised him that if he took the plea offered by the government of pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute in exchange for a shorter sentence, he would not and could not be deported. In reality, deportation was a mandatory penalty for the crime for which he had just been convicted, and deportation proceedings were promptly instituted.

Lee appealed on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must not just prove that his attorney’s representation was “deficient”, but also that the defendant was “prejudiced” as a result. The parties agree that the first element is met; indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, that a lawyer provides ineffective counsel when he fails to tell a client that pleading guilty will subject the defendant to deportation.

The case thus centers on the second element: was Jae Lee actually prejudiced as a result of his attorney’s plainly deficient advice? Despite the gut reaction being “obviously”, the Sixth Circuit said no, basing their decision on the aforementioned Padilla case, which stated that “to obtain relief on this type of claim, a petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.”

The Sixth Circuit reasoned that it would not have been objectively rational to reject the offered plea because Lee had no real chance of avoiding deportation due to overwhelming evidence of his guilt, and because there was no real prospect of pleading down to a non-deportable offense. According to the Sixth Circuit, “being denied the chance to throw a Hail Mary at trial does not by itself amount to prejudice.” Lee, on the other hand, essentially argues that with nothing to lose deportation-wise, it would have been perfectly rational to “risk it” at trial. Thus, by depriving Lee of this option, Lee was prejudiced. It bears mentioning that circuit courts are deeply split on this very issue, with the Third, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits finding for defendants in Lee’s situation, and the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth (both here and in a prior decision) Circuit Courts finding against similarly-situated defendants.

At issue is not just Lee’s fate, but also the Court’s view of the state of plea bargaining in this country. To that end, the case makes for strange alliances and bedfellows. Liberal criminal justice reformers criticize the system as a plea bargaining mill, where under 5 percent of cases go to trial and the other 95% defendants plea rather than risking trial. This criticism of plea bargaining underscores Jae Lee’s argument and was discussed in amicus briefing in Lee’s favor. Representing Lee, however, is not the ACLU or a liberal interest group, but rather John J. Bursch, the conservative former Michigan Solicitor General who had been floated as a possible Trump pick for Solicitor General, and who has argued before the Supreme Court ten times. The most notable of these appearance was in Obergefell v. Hodges, when he argued on behalf of the states against gay marriage. In another case before the high court, Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. __ (2012), during his stint as Michigan’s Solicitor General, Bursch argued against a criminal defendant’s ineffective assistance claim under Strickland. Suffice it to say, representing a likely-guilty drug-dealing immigrant against the government’s attempts to deport him is not a typical situation for him. In fact, twenty states – all of which were won by Trump, including Bursch’s home state of Michigan – filed an Amicus Brief against Lee and for the U.S. government. That Lee is represented by Bursch instantly provides conservative gravitas and legitimacy to his argument.

On the other side, we have the United States government, paradoxically arguing that remaining in America is not great enough to risk jail time for. That is obviously an over-simplification of their position, but hits at the gravamen of Lee’s argument – that it is sometimes rational for an immigrant to risk trial and extended jail time in order to maintain a sliver of hope of remaining in this country.

In a perfectly logical way, the government’s position makes sense – Lee cannot prove prejudice because he cannot show that his attorney’s ineffectiveness plausibly led to a worse outcome, since Lee’s conviction and deportation were almost certain to occur. But it’s the “almost” part of “almost certain” that is key. Like all citizens, Lee has a constitutional right to a jury trial and a presumption of innocence, and that was taken from him directly because of his attorney’s deficiency. However unlikely, Lee could have won – at least on the deportation-mandatory “intent to distribute” charge. Lee also may have obtained a more favorable plea on lesser, non-deportable charges later in the proceedings.

Going to trial to maintain that sliver of hope is objectively reasonable, even at the risk of a longer jail sentence. For an immigrant, remaining “in the United States may be more important than any potential jail sentence.” Padilla, at 368. Not just to Jae Lee, but to other immigrants as well. Lee’s attorney, Bursch – who personally argued against gay marriage in the Supreme Court – persuasively provides the example of a legal immigrant from Nigeria who is LGBT and would face potential death if returned to his home country. To that defendant, taking his chances at trial is certainly objectively rational. Bursch then cites to an article listing ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. This argument serves as the piece de resistance of Lee’s brief, and it is even more stunning considering the source.

That Bursch is the one making this argument may actually be the thing that wins the day for Lee. It would be very easy for Chief Justice Roberts and other conservatives in the “calling balls and strikes” crowd to write Lee’s case off as an unfortunate but straightforward application of existing precedent. But Bursch’s involvement complicates things, and it may create a subconscious permission structure for at least some of the conservatives (i.e. Roberts and Kennedy) to find for Lee. Again, this isn’t the Southern Poverty Law Center making this argument, it is a prominent conservative appellate lawyer who has spent his career representing governments and defending conservative positions.

Ultimately, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy will likely be the deciding votes, and it remains to be seen whether they or the other justices will be swayed by Lee’s logic. But it certainly appears to me to be an instance when risking near-certain conviction at trial would be objectively favorable to a plea to reduce prison time.