begin quote from:
Acting Attorney General Says Justice Department Won't Defend Trump's Ban On Refugees, Travelers
| Huffington Post | - |
Her
decision will almost certainly be reversed once the Senate confirms
Jeff Sessions as attorney general. 01/30/2017 06:56 pm ET | Updated 27
minutes ago.
TRENDING
Acting Attorney General Says Justice Department Won’t Defend Trump’s Ban On Refugees, Travelers
Her decision will almost certainly be reversed once the Senate confirms Jeff Sessions as attorney general.
X
WASHINGTON
― In a stunning announcement Monday afternoon, acting Attorney General
Sally Yates said the Justice Department won’t defend President Donald
Trump’s executive order blocking all refugees and certain foreign
nationals.
“I am responsible for ensuring that
the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s
solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,”
Yates, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote to Justice
Department lawyers, the New York Times first reported.
“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order
is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the
executive order is lawful.”
The
announcement from Yates delivers a symbolic blow to the executive order
Trump signed on Friday suspending all refugee resettlement for 120
days, halting Syrian refugee resettlement entirely and temporarily
barring entry of nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran,
Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Before Yates’ letter, the Justice Department said that the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ had cleared the language
of Trump’s executive order. But as Yates made clear in her letter, that
review was focused on the narrow question of whether it is lawful on
its face and properly drafted and “does not address whether any policy
choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.”
Trump called Yates “an Obama
A.G.” in a tweet not long after her letter became public, and said that
Democrats were “delaying [his] cabinet picks for purely political
reasons.”
Trump advisor Stephen Miller
said on MSNBC’s “For The Record” that it was “sad” that there were
people “refusing to enforce our laws,” and knocked Yates and others for
objecting to Trump when they didn’t object to Obama’s immigration
decisions.
“Now you have us using and
utilizing and enforcing our laws and you have the same people who were
silent then now engaging in misguided political protests,” Miller said.
Trump’s
order faces multiple lawsuits, and several courts had already issued
orders that led to the release of some individuals detained due to the
executive order. But the refusal of the Justice Department to defend the
order leaves it in legal limbo.
Also in limbo is Yates’ immediate fate at the department. A week before leaving office, Obama signed an executive order
providing for a succession line at the Department of Justice once
Attorney General Loretta Lynch left her post. Under that order, Yates,
who is a longtime career prosecutor at the DOJ, would serve as acting
attorney general. Trump agreed to keep her on the post until the
confirmation of his nominee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
Trump has the power to fire
Yates and very well could, though that would send a potentially damaging
signal for how he views the department’s prosecutorial independence. It
would also leave the department without any officials authorized to
sign warrants for foreign surveillance.
There was no immediate comment from the White House.
However, Yates’ decision would almost certainly be reversed as soon as the Senate confirms Sessions.
At least one Democrat is
already sticking up for Yates. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.) said in a
statement that she “demonstrated genuine grit and grace in standing
strong for the rule of law.”
Meanwhile, Democrats continued to attack the order on Monday,
introducing bills in both chambers to halt its implementation.
Republicans blocked votes on it, but Democrats clearly feel they have
the public on their side and aren’t dropping the issue. They led an
evening rally outside the Supreme Court demanding an immediate end to
the ban on refugees and travelers. Police closed down the street in
front of the court to accommodate the hundreds of people who showed up
with signs, and ready chants, in support of Democrats’ efforts.
One of those people was Bill Sanderson, who stood in the cold with his wife and their 2-year-old son.
“I’ve got a baby
on the way,” said Sanderson, 40, motioning to his pregnant wife, Lise
Clavel. “And I’ve got this guy who’s 2 years old. I want him to see what
it looks like when people feel something strongly. Whatever he comes to
believe, I want him to feel this.”
Clavel said she
felt obligated to lend her voice at the rally because she fears Trump’s
agenda will leave the country worse off for minorities and women.
“We don’t know who
is on the way, but especially if it’s a little girl on the way, we just
haven’t seen something like this in our country, in our lifetimes,” she
said, choking up. “And it’s kind of scary.”
SAUL LOEB via Getty Images
Trump lacks many
strong allies among Republicans. Only a small number released statements
applauding the order over the weekend, while a growing number have said
they are concerned about it. Some have claimed it was the wrong move
entirely, and a potentially dangerous one that could be used by
terrorist recruiters. But many others objected more to its
implementation, which led to the detention in airports of many people
with valid visas and even green cards, and both Congress and the
agencies tasked with enforcing the order scrambling to figure out how it
would work.
A major problem
between Trump and congressional Republicans is the fact that many say
the order was done without the president’s team consulting them at all ―
outside the norm for a major and controversial policy change. It’s
tough for lawmakers to mount a rousing defense of an order they hadn’t
seen until the day it was signed ― or one they still have questions on
that the administration hasn’t answered.
Sen. Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.) said that his staff was told by the State Department that it
“was ordered not to talk to Congress about this issue.”
“We were told that the
directive was that they were not to share any information today, and ...
I suppose it’s because I’m not clear what they’ll tell us yet,” Rubio
told reporters. “But that cannot be a permanent position. We expect
answers here fairly soon because we have constituents calling.”
Read the full text of Yates’ letter:
On
January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding
immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The
order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the
Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine
the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My
role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC),
which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive
Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is
limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed
Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review
does not take account of statements made by an administration or it
surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may
bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address
whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or
just.
Similarly,
in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing
reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive
Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and
broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the
Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by
our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.
In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in
court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to
always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not
convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with
these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is
lawful.
Consequently,
for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of
Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order,
unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment