When it comes to immigration, the Trump administration is in a fight to the death with its own lawyers and the courts.
On one side are the federal government’s lawyers and judges, who are waging a battle to determine whether President Donald Trump is in violation of the 14th Amendment.
On the other side are local law enforcement agencies, the courts and a federal district court judge in Seattle.
As the Trump-appointed federal judge in the Seattle case, William A. Orrick, wrote in a recent decision, “the administration’s argument that immigration policy is based on the law is not a legal one.
It is an ideological one.”
Orrick’s ruling could have a significant impact on the immigration debate in the United States, where the Trump Administration is also trying to determine the legality of President Donald J. Trump’s executive order barring entry of people from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
“There’s a lot of pressure on the Trump Administrations lawyers to get the immigration case out of the courts,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
“I think Orrick has a big impact on that.”
The Obama administration sued the Trump government in a federal court in California to force the release of documents that would shed light on whether President Trump violated the 14-year-old amendment that bars the federal, state and local governments from discriminating on the basis of religion.
“This is going to be very expensive for the Trump Admins lawyers,” said Krikorians attorney, Mark Geragos, in an interview with Ars.
“It will take some time for the government to put the case together.”
It’s a fight the Trump lawyers are likely to lose, because the federal courts in Seattle are a very conservative district court.
The Obama lawyers argued that the Seattle ruling would allow the federal district judge to strike down the president’s order, and Orrick said he would rule in their favor.
The case is currently before Orrick.
The Trump administration and Orricks lawyers have been at war over the immigration policy in the country for the past few months.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced it would be imposing a 90-day hold on all deportations and immigration enforcement.
Immigration lawyers are not surprised by the Trump officials move, though they were skeptical it would go through the courts as the administration wanted.
“The Trump administration’s approach is to fight on all fronts,” said Geragos.
“They are very aggressive in trying to undermine the executive order.
But the courts are going to have to stand up and do their job.”
Trump has previously argued that he has no legal right to implement the executive orders.
But Orrick ruled that he did not have jurisdiction over the Trump immigration order because it is not an immigration or visa issue.
“We think that the federal judges should be enforcing immigration law, and not deferring to the executive branch on immigration,” said Orrick in his decision.
“That’s not what the president has said.”
Trump’s lawyers have also argued that Orrick is wrong to strike a precedent in a lawsuit that was filed by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
In that case, the Obama administration argued that immigration law did not allow for the deportation of individuals who were “detained in the course of lawful activity.”
Orricks opinion makes clear that he is not prepared to rule on that case.
“If the president can’t deport people based on their immigration status, what about other lawful activity, like business or employment?” said Krieger, the immigration lawyer.
“These cases have been litigated before and they are settled.
It’s really an opinion based on a misunderstanding of the law.
It doesn’t make sense to rule in the presidents favor because the courts aren’t going to do that.”
It is unlikely that Orricks decision would have a major impact on any Trump administration policy.
But it could impact the immigration battle in the Washington state case, which is currently being heard by a federal judge.
“My gut reaction is that Orick is going with the Trump legal team,” said Steven Green, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who is also representing the federal plaintiffs in the case.
Orricks case could have big implications for the legal fight in Washington state.
Green said Orricks ruling could allow the Trump Justice Department to challenge the validity of the Seattle order and could affect the future of the Trump’s immigration crackdown.
“Orrick’s decision will be critical to how the Trump Immigration crackdown is enforced,” said Green.
“He’s not just the guy who is going in to make an opinion about whether or not Trump is violating the 14 year-old immigration law.”