The far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just sided with the Trump administration on a major issue.
Planned Parenthood won’t be thrilled, but, obviously, that’s a good thing.
Here’s the scoop, per Washington Examiner:
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Trump administration’s restrictions on family planning funds could go into effect, a move that would cut off millions of dollars from organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide abortions.
The Trump administration’s rules had been temporarily blocked nationwide by federal judges in Oregon and Washington, and statewide in California. On Thursday, a panel of judges in the 9th Circuit granted the request 3-0 from the Trump administration to block the preliminary injunctions, saying the different lawsuits underway needed to play out.
The decision means that clinics that receive federal family planning grants called Title X — which pay for birth control, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, and cancer screenings — will not be allowed to be housed in the same buildings as those that also provide abortions. The rules prohibit doctors who receive the funds from directly referring patients to abortions, leading critics to refer to it as a “gag rule.”
One of President Trump’s greatest accomplishments has been reshaping the federal courts.
He has placed constitutionalists on the bench at a record clip.
And yet, the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continues to go against American values.
From Daily Wire:
On Thursday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border who fail their initial threshold of showing a “credible fear” of persecution in their home countries are entitled to a judicial appeal before they can be deported. The decision could severely undermine the Trump Administration’s efforts at securing the border and expeditiously deporting frivolous would-be aslyees in California and Arizona, which are both border states under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.
More via Law360:
The Ninth Circuit looked back at cases dating to the 1700s, determining that under review procedures set by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2008 case known as Boumediene and by legal precedent set in several immigration cases dating back to the 1950s, Thuraissigiam should be covered by the suspension clause [of tbe U.S. Constitution] because he was arrested in the United States, according to the opinion.
The court went on to hold that a procedure that would not allow the California court to review the immigration judge’s determination in Thuraissigiam’s case would be unconstitutional, according to Thursday’s opinion.
“We … reject the government’s contention that because, in its view, Thuraissigiam lacks due process rights, there are no rights for the suspension clause to protect,” the opinion read. “Boumediene foreclosed that argument by holding that, whether or not due process was satisfied, the suspension clause might require more.”