Nation

Flynn Update: Order To Dismiss Case ‘Vacated’ Case Will Be Reheard In August

Published

4 years ago

July 30, 2020

The internal battle in the courts and Department of Justice regarding the case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn has been nothing short of a roller coaster ride. Now it seems the decision by a federal appeals court is prolonging the case.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued the order Thursday that challenged the Department of Justice’s request last month to drop the case against Flynn.

That order will allow the courts to revisit U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s request that the case not be dismissed and the case will be reheard by the full federal appeals court in Washington D.C.

The order to hear the set oral arguments is now scheduled for August 11.

Sidney Powell, Flynn’s defense attorney, could not be immediately reached for comment.

“Further ordered is that the court’s order filed June 24, 2020 be vacated,” stated the order. It also stated that an “oral argument before the en banc court 9:30 am on Tuesday, August 11.”

U.S. Attorney General William Barr disclosed this week that he has appointed U.S. Attorney John Bash from the Western District of Texas, to investigate the “unmasking” Flynn that led to the national security leak in The Washington Post.

The Post’s David Ignatius revealed in January, 2017 the details of a classified telephone conversation between Flynn and former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. That conversation had been intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials monitoring the Russian Ambassadors communications.

Flynn update:

The Order compelling Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case is vacated.

The case will be reheard by the court sitting en banc.

Oral argument is set for August 11.

One issue of note: whether there are "no other adequate means to attain the relief" desired. pic.twitter.com/rhdp3CePud
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) July 30, 2020

Immigration

Ninth Circuit Rules Federal Government Can Deport Illegal Immigrants

Published

1 hour ago

December 4, 2024

Sara Carter Staff

In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal government’s authority to deport foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally. The decision came after objections from local jurisdictions, and therefore reaffirms federal immigration enforcement capabilities, and deals a blow to sanctuary policies aimed at obstructing deportations.

The case centered on a 2019 executive order issued by King County Executive Dow Constantine, which barred the use of King County International Airport, near Seattle, for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation charter flights. The airport is adjacent to a major ICE operational base in Seattle, writes The Center Square.

Constantine’s order sought to prevent airport services from supporting ICE deportation flights, citing concerns about family separations, racial disparities in enforcement, and other human rights issues. The federal government, under the Trump administration, sued, arguing that the order violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, and a WWII-era Instrument of Transfer agreement allowing federal use of the airport.

A district court ruled in favor of the federal government, and King County appealed. Writing for the Ninth Circuit, Judge Daniel Bress, joined by Judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton, affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The panel ruled that Constantine’s order improperly targeted the federal government and its contractors, violating the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by “singling out the federal government and its contractors for unfavorable treatment.” The court further found that the order increased ICE’s operational costs and created imminent risks of further injury, thereby giving the federal government standing to sue.

Additionally, the judges upheld the claim that the order violated the Instrument of Transfer under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, which explicitly allows federal use of the airport.

Constantine defended the order as consistent with King County’s commitment to inclusivity and human rights. He argued that deportations conflict with the region’s values, including protecting families and promoting equity. However, the Ninth Circuit held that such ideological arguments could not override federal law and constitutional principles.