Gregg Jarrett: 4 things you need to know about the rulings against Trump's latest travel ban

Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland ruled against President Trump’s revised travel ban with separate, but similar, orders blocking the main provisions of his executive order which limits travel and immigration to the United States from six predominately Muslim countries.  Here is what you need to know about the rulings from these judges:    
1.) Legally, what did the 2 judges find wrong with the revised travel ban?
Principally, that the executive order violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution because it discriminates against Muslims. The judges relied not on the detailed language of the executive order, but on several of the remarks President Trump made as a candidate on the campaign trail, even though he later revised his stance on immigrants seeking entry into the U.S.
The judges largely ignored the President’s justification stated specifically in the ban that he was acting in the interest of national security to protect American citizens from potential terrorists because the 6 banned nations are state sponsors of terrorism (as identified by Congress and President Obama in an anti-terrorism law) and those governments do not assist the U.S. in vetting applicants with background checks.
2.) How unusual is it for a judge to rely so heavily on campaign rhetoric?
It is extraordinary and well beyond the scope of what judges are supposed to consider.  Candidates for office often make statements they don’t entirely mean. Or they later revise or change their views.  That is what candidate Trump did.  After first claiming he would institute a Muslim ban, he later changed his stance to say that he would ban entry from countries that pose a terrorist threat.
But these two judges ignored his revised position and accused the President if using national security as a pre-text for banning Muslims.  In doing so, the judges were pretending to read President Trump’s mind.  It smacks of judicial activism and appears contrary to established law on judicial review.  Courts don’t normally consider campaign rhetoric in interpreting a law or executive order.    
3.) At the same time, 5 judges on the 9^th circuit court of appeals issued their own opinion.  What was it?
This was also unusual.  In an unsolicited filing, five Republican-appointed judges on the 9^th Circuit (the same court which last month ruled against President Trump’s first travel ban) wrote this in a published opinion:
     “Whatever we as individuals may feel about the President or the executive order, the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency.”        
These five judges all but accused their colleagues of judicial activism and overreach because they don’t like President Trump or his policies. The five judges recognized that the President has both constitutional (Article 1, Section 8) and statutory authority (the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act) to dictate immigration as it applies to national security threats.  
4.)   So, what happens next?
The ruling by the judge in Hawaii can be appealed to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Maryland ruling would be appealed to the 4^th Circuit. They could be reversed on appeal.  Or not.
After that, the cases could wind their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently has 8 Justices.  Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the seat left vacant by Antonin Scalia’s death, is set to begin confirmation hearings next week.  It is possible Democrats may try to delay his confirmation vote, leaving a potential 4-4 split on the high court.  In that case, the lower appellate court rulings would stand. But if those rulings conflict, it is unclear what would happen.
But all of this may turn out to be moot. The main part of the travel ban will expire after 90 days.  
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.

Donald Trump's sharp budget ax: Now the swamp fights back

Now we’re talking real money.
With President Trump detailing the budget cuts he would make to pay for his sharp rise in defense spending, the battle for control of the swamp is getting under way.
The apocalyptic reaction, led by the media, reminds me of 1981, when Ronald Reagan proposed what were then described as draconian proposals to slash the budget. Trump’s cutbacks are far larger. And it’s worth noting that while Reagan got much of what he wanted, the federal budget wound up being bigger by the end of his tenure, and he didn’t eliminate a major agency.
But even the smaller cuts that Trump wants to make are hard because every program in that gargantuan budget has a fiercely loyal constituency backed up by lobbyists who know how many jobs would be lost and in which congressional districts.
Those who don’t want their programs slashed have a built-in PR advantage. They can generate coverage of real-life victims who would be hurt by the withdrawal of this or that federal subsidy, while the other side has to make abstract arguments: Government is too wasteful, the deficit is out of control, we’re living beyond our means.
A Washington Post headline: “Massive cuts to the arts, science and the poor.”
A New York Times headline: “Trump Proposes Eliminating the Arts and Humanities Endowments.”
A Huffington Post headline: "Trump Government Bloodletting."
A BuzzFeed headline: “Slash and Bird”—with a picture of Big Bird, since Trump would end aid to PBS, along with National Public Radio.
Some of this is part of a culture war, and Republicans have tried before to zero out PBS. While big-city stations and programs like “News Hour” and “Sesame Street” would survive, some of the smaller of PBS’s 350 stations would be faced with extinction.
Another Washington Post story ticks off some of the subsidized services that lower-income people rely upon:
“If you’re a poor person in America, Trump’s budget is not for you.” It “would slash or abolish programs that have provided low-income Americans with help on virtually all fronts, including affordable housing, banking, weatherizing homes, job training, paying home heating oil bills, and obtaining legal counsel in civil matters.”
A New York Times piece says that many Trump voters would be among those penalized:
“Some of the budget losers, it turns out, may be some of the very constituencies that have been most supportive of the new president during his improbable rise to power.
“While border guards will have more prisons to lock up unauthorized immigrants, rural communities will lose grants and loans to build water facilities and financing to keep their airports open. As charter schools are bolstered, after-school and summer programs will lose money. As law enforcement agents get more help to fight the opioid epidemic, lower-income Americans will have less access to home energy aid, job training programs and legal services.”
All this is true. It’s also the price that must be paid to slim down government—although Trump is demanding deeper cuts in part to offset his proposed $54-billion boost in defense spending and his planned tax cuts.
Of course, some agencies employ the Washington Monument defense, singling out the services that will most outrage the public as opposed to the training and research programs where much of the fact may lie. (No threat to close the monument this year, since it’s already shut down for repairs.)
It’s reminiscent in some ways of the ObamaCare debate, where the rallying cry of repealing the program is being tempered by the impact on millions of Americans who could lose their coverage.
No president gets everything they want in a budget. But by taking an ax to so many programs, Trump has created a major test with Congress in what is likely to be an unsympathetic media climate.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Trump's first budget faces early Republican resistance

President Trump’s “America First” budget released Thursday that calls for steep cuts to the State Department and Environmental Protection Agency in order to increase defense spending was called by some Republicans as a pie-in-the-sky wish list that will never pass Congress in tact.
It is not uncommon for a president’s initial “skinny budget” to face an uphill fight with congressmen who control the government’s purse strings. But the early resistance is notable since Republicans control both the House and Senate. Even House Speaker Paul Ryan appeared to hedge his optimism on the plan that he called a “blueprint.”
For better or worse, Trump’s budget appears to make good on some of his key campaign promises. He calls for an increase in defense spending by $54 billion, which The Associated Press points out is the largest increase since President Reagan’s military buildup of the 1980s. The defense increase will be paid for by cuts to the EPA, State Department and federal funding for the arts.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who often finds himself at odds with Trump, said plainly, “It is clear that this budget proposed today cannot pass the Senate.”
Trump said in a statement that “to keep Americans safe, we have made the tough choices that have been put off for too long.”
Republicans leaders spread out across the country have found items in the budget that would likely not still well with their voters.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, spoke out against the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., called out the budget cut on the Appalachian Regional commission, which assists communities in his region. He called Trump’s budget cuts “draconian, careless and counterproductive.”
“I just want to make sure that rural America, who was very supportive to Trump, doesn’t have to take a disproportionately high cut,” Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., told the AP.
Republicans praised the president for beefing up the Pentagon, but they were far less enthusiastic about accepting Trump's recipe for doing so without adding to the nation's $20 trillion debt.
"While we support more funding for our military and defense, we must maintain support for our farmers and ranchers," said North Dakota Republican John Hoeven, blasting a 21 percent cut to the Agriculture Department's budget.
KRAUTHAMMER: TRUMP'S BUDGET PROPOSAL IS 'DEAD ON ARRIVAL'
Democrats have spoken out against the budget they say would devastate the work done by agencies like the EPA. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted, “Democrats in Congress will emphatically oppose these cuts & urge our Republican colleagues to reject them as well.”
White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said this is not a take-it-or-leave-it budget. He told The Washington Post that the “message we’re sending to the Hill is, we want more money for the things the president talked about, defense being the top one, national security. And we don’t want to add to the budget deficit. If Congress has another way to do that, we’re happy to talk to them about it.” 

Federal Judge Cartoon

Trump lashes out at latest travel ban ruling: 'It makes us look weak!'

Snowflakes

President Trump slammed a Hawaii federal judge who halted his revised travel ban from going into effect Wednesday, saying the ruling was "unprecedented judicial overreach."
"This ruling makes us look weak," Trump thundered at a rally in Nashville, Tenn., before vowing that he would "fight this terrible ruling ... as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court."
A temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson was made public approximately an hour before Trump took the stage in front of a raucous crowd of placard-waving supporters.
"Let me give you the bad news, the sad news," Trump told his audience about the decision, later adding "and I have to be nice, otherwise I'll get criticized for speaking poorly about our courts."
The order before Watson on Wednesday was a revised version of an earlier order, which temporarily suspended the U.S. refugee program and barred the entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries. More than half a dozen states were attempting to prevent the latest ban from taking effect early Thursday.

"This new order was tailored to the dictates of the Ninth Circuit's, in my opinion, flawed ruling," Trump said. "This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach.
"The law and the Constitution," the president argued to a cheering crowd, "give the president the power to suspend immigration when he deems -- or she  ... deems it to be in the national interest of our country."
On Air Force One late Wednesday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the administration stood by the initial executive order, which was halted by the appeals court last month.
"We believed the first one was accurate," Spicer said, "[and] the second one was literally tailored to the court ruling." The spokesman said he did not know what the administration's next steps would be.
The travel ban was one of many topics Trump touched on during the campaign-style rally, including his joint effort with House Republicans to replace ObamaCare.
At one point, Trump invoked Tennessee native Andrew Jackson, a fellow populist outsider, and said the seventh president "understood that real leadership means putting America first."
Earlier Wednesday, the president laid a wreath at Andrew Jackson's tomb to mark the 250th anniversary of the former president's birth, and toured the Hermitage, Jackson's home.

"We're keeping our promises," said Trump, noting that he's more than halfway through the 100-day measure by which new presidents are judged. "And we have just gotten started. Wait till you see what's coming, folks."
On the flight back to Washington, he said he hoped to hold rallies "every two weeks. I mean, these are great people."

Tillerson: Asia allies 'critical' for addressing North Korean threat

TOKYO –  U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Thursday cooperation with allies Japan and South Korea is "critical" to addressing the threat from North Korea's nuclear and missile programs.
Tillerson was speaking as he met with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida on his first trip to Asia as the top U.S. diplomat.
North Korea is expected to top the agenda at Tillerson's talks in Tokyo. Last week, North Korea test-fired four missiles that landed in ocean off Japan.
Tillerson will meet later Thursday with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Japan and South Korea both host tens of thousands of U.S. troops. Washington has been urging the two nations to step security cooperation despite their historically strained relations. This week, the nations' three navies have conducted missile defense information-sharing drills in the region
Tillerson said that strengthening U.S. relations with Japan and trilateral cooperation among all three "is critical in particular as we address North Korea's nuclear and missile programs."
Kishida said the fact that Japan was Tillerson's first stop showed the importance Washington attaches to the relationship. He said the U.S. and Japan had an "unwavering bond."
On Friday, Tillerson travels to South Korea, where U.S. forces are engaged in annual military drills that have angered Pyongyang.
He then goes to China. Washington wants Beijing to exert more pressure on North Korea over its provocative behavior.

Federal judge in Hawaii halts Trump travel ban

President Trump's revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii just hours before it was set to take effect after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.
Trump addressed the judge’s move during a rally in Nashville, Tennessee calling it “unprecedented judicial overreach” and vowed to fight.
"We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe," Trump said. "The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear."
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson prevents the executive order from going into effect, at least for now. Hawaii had requested a temporary restraining order.
"Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court," Watson wrote in his ruling.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL RULING.
In a statement released late Wednesday night the Department of Justice said they strongly disagreed with the ruling and called the move "flawed both in reasoning and scope."
"The President’s Executive Order falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our Nation’s security, and the Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts," said DOJ Spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores.
The ruling came as opponents renewed their legal challenges across the country, asking judges in three states to block the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries.
More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments about whether it should be put into practice early Thursday.
Hawaii also argued to the court that the ban would prevent residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six countries covered by the order. The state says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.
Senator Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, welcomed the ruling and said “Judge Watson exemplifies the importance of an independent judiciary.”
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called the travel ban "bad policy" and praised Attorney General Doug Chin for stopping the order.
In Maryland, attorneys told a federal judge that the measure still discriminates against Muslims.

More on this...

• New Trump travel ban can't be enforced on Syrian family trying to flee to Wisconsin, judge says

• Legal challenges to Trump's travel ban mount from US states

• Hawaii sues to block Trump's revised travel ban

Government attorneys argued that the ban was revised substantially to address legal concerns, including the removal of an exemption for religious minorities from the affected countries.
"It doesn't say anything about religion. It doesn't draw any religious distinctions," Jeffrey Wall, who argued for the Justice Department, said in court.
Attorneys for the ACLU and other groups said that Trump's statements on the campaign trail and statements from his advisers since he took office make clear that the intent of the ban is to ban Muslims.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called the order "yet another victory."
"President Trump's second executive order is just a Muslim Ban by another name - with the same unlawful and unconstitutional goal of discriminating based on religion and national origin," he said in a statement.
Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller has previously said the revised order was designed to have "the same basic policy outcome" as the first.
The latest version of the ban details more of a national security rationale. It is narrower and eases some concerns about violating the due-process rights of travelers, appyling only to new visas from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. It does not apply to travelers who already have visas.
"Generally, courts defer on national security to the government," said U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang. "Do I need to conclude that the national security purpose is a sham and false?"
In response, ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat pointed to Miller's statement and said the government had put out misleading and contradictory information about whether banning travel from six specific countries would make the nation safer.
The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it's against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.
In the Hawaii case, the federal government said there was no need to issue an emergency restraining order because Hawaii officials offered only "generalized allegations" of harm.
Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General challenged Hawaii's claim that the order violates due-process rights of Ismail Elshikh as a U.S. citizen who wants his mother-in-law to visit his family from Syria. He says courts have not extended due-process rights outside of a spousal relationship.
Neal Katyal, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing Hawaii, called the story of Elshiskh, an Egyptian immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, "the story of America."

Wall told the judge that if he is inclined to issue an injunction, it should be tailored specifically to Hawaii and not nationwide.
In Washington state, U.S. District Judge James Robart -- who halted the original ban last month -- heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which is making arguments similar to the ACLU's in the Maryland case.
Robart said he is most interested in two questions presented by the group's challenge to the ban: whether the ban violates federal immigration law, and whether the affected immigrants would be "irreparably harmed" should the ban go into effect.
He spent much of Wednesday afternoon's hearing grilling the lawyers about two seeming conflicting federal laws on immigration -- one which gives the president the authority to keep "any class of aliens" out of the country, and another that forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to issuing immigrant visas.
Robart said he would issue a written order, but he did not say when. He is also overseeing the challenge brought by Washington state.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson argues that the new order harms residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies such as Washington state-based Microsoft and Amazon, which rely on foreign workers. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon have joined the claim.
Washington and Hawaii say the order also violates the First Amendment, which bars the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion. On that point, they say, the new ban is no different than the old. The states' First Amendment claim has not been resolved.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the original ban but did not rule on the discrimination claim.

EPA, State Department prepare for cuts under Trump's budget, report says

President Trump’s budget plan for fiscal 2018 increases defense spending and cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department, Reuters reported, citing a congressional source.
Trump's first budget-- which is set to be released on Thursday at 7 a.m. ET-- will reportedly cut 28 percent out of the State Department's funding and about 31 percent from the EPA, which The New York Times reported is arguably the hardest hit.
Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator, who at times has spoken out against the agency, reportedly asked the White House for about $7 billion in funding, but was denied. The White house reportedly cut the funding futher to $5.7 billion.
VIDEO: PREVIEWING TRUMP'S PROPOSED BUDGET
The saved money is expected to cover an anticipated $54 billion increase in Defense Department spending and a small increase to homeland security.
Although Republicans control both the House and the Senate, Trump’s “skinny budget” is likely to face political hurdles. Last month, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called Trump’s original plan to cut the State Department’s budget by 37 percent “dead on arrival.” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has also criticized the cuts to the State Department.
Roughly $1 trillion of Trump’s overall estimated $4 trillion annual federal budget goes to Cabinet agencies and departments.
The specific details of the programs or jobs that are on the chopping block are not released until well after the initial budget is submitted. The House appropriations subcommittees reviewed Trump’s plan late Wednesday.
The Times reported that members said there is to be cuts to decades-old food programs for poor countries and the complete elimination of the Department of Transportation’s Essential Air Service program, which reportedly subsidizes flight to rural airports in the country.
SENATE DEMOCRATS THREATEN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
The Times reported that the cuts are expected to affect Amtrak and public education. The plan will reportedly phase out federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told Fox News that the budget was written using Trump's “own words” during the campaign. He said the plan does not balance the budget, but it also does not add to the deficit. Mulvaney said the budget will include $1.5 billion for the border wall, as a starting point.
A former OMB official told Reuters that the Trump administration is really “cutting into bone.” Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Reuters that Trump’s budget is unusually skinny, possibly “emaciated.”