The Case before the 9th District will probably be cited in a manner similar to this.
State of Washington
State of Minnesota,
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
v.
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States,
Rex W. Tillersonm, Secretary of State,
John F. Kelly, Secretary Dept. Homeland Security
UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
Defendents-Appellants
Quite likely law school students
will refer to it as
Washington v. Trump
It is likely to go before the Supreme Court, sitting with eight Justices.
To reverse the Federal Court decision they will need a majority of the Justices. That would mean 5 Justices would be needed to overturn it.
This is not a likely outcome as the court is split 4-4.
Although Trump mouthing off and even issuing a new executive order at this point might anger Chief Justice Roberts or any of the conservative Justices.
Federal Judges as a rule are quite bright and reading their decisions can be a difficult chore.
This decision is beautifully written, quite obviously written in prose and easily understood.
With a great deal of help from the NY Times a few of the salient points seem to be..........
"Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree"
"In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, there is no precedent to support this claimed reviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy”
"Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages"
“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States”
“The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel”
'We cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings”
As a defining rule the preamble itself always insinuates itself into the minds of every justice and every party to the action, even though it has no weight in law.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
| 
