CA Judge Blocks Trump’s Asylum Ban, Calling It ‘Arbitrary And Capricious’

A San Francisco judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s asylum ban after determining that it was “inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

I’d go with “cruel” and “unusual” but whatever.


Haha he was bragging about that earlier decision in his very stable and very cool press tantrum before heading to West Virginia to be cheered for by dolts. Then this bad news aw sadface. End of a perfect day! Bet he was curled up on the floor of the chopper, sucking his thumb and crying.


The GOP blocked the Election Security Bill yesterday so that must have him up laughing and beating his chest again.


‘Arbitrary And Capricious’ is applicable to just about everything the Trump administration does, the only exceptions being actions that are deliberately cruel and vindictive.


It will eventually reach the supreme court, which will likely uphold the ban because furriners.

I think the line at the Hague is getting longer.


Seems that “Arbitrary and Capricious” would well describe most the administrations actions


I’m sure they’ll just pivot to abusing the judge and demanding that he be drummed out of his lifetime appointment. If you’re going to joke about being President for life, you might as well add changing the judiciary and the legislative branches so that you don’t encounter any complications on the way.

This characterization applies to Trump:

"Winston Churchill once said of John Foster Dulles, "He’s the only bull I know who carries his own china closet with him."


The rule is a clear violation of both the US asylum statute and the international law which was written in part by the US.


If there is a lawyer here, can you explain the rationale behind the ‘first’ judge’s decision that the Executive Order was the capable of undoing US LAW and TREATY?

1 Like

Can someone clarify, is the ban blocked or in effect? I can’t keep track when we have an East/West court fight

It’s blocked, at least until the appeals court(s) act.

One interesting note about the other case, from the linked Politico article:

Kelly did not rule on the merits of the case, but suggested he would consider the “severely strained” immigration system when deciding the matter.

In other words, he would legislate from the bench.


The EO implementing the Muslim travel ban was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment which was written in whole by the US, but that didn’t concern the right wing bloc on the Supreme Court. Besides, the safe third country exception in 8 US Code §1158(a)(2) allows the AG to remove an alien to a safe third country “pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement.” I’m confident that same conservative bloc, citing Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v Heller, can find that the statute’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. Thus, the clear meaning of the statute is that the AG can do whatever he wants to do (see, Trump - Article II).

1 Like

I’m an immigration lawyer, and I can’t. As to the judge, I remember being shocked when our 1st-year civil procedure prof once said, in response to a student’s argument that, “yes, but the judge ruled * * * .”

The prof listened and then scoffed: “Hell, you can get a federal district court judge to say anything.”

Certainly applies here!


It speaks volumes that the most prosporous nation in the world would say
to those needing help … " Look somewhere else " —

Not very surprising … actually …
when this country refuses to even take care of it’s own who are suffering … ie :

Soo … All that prosperity must be going somewhere ? ? …
Maybe if we cut taxes for the richie rich they will become more generous — :cry:


Great quote. Thanks.

My immediate thought was that Trump received the china as a ”gift”, wants Congress to reimburse him for what it would cost if he bought it himself, and wants all of us to thank him for making a mess afterward.

1 Like