Monday, February 6, 2017

U.S.Tech Firms Go Anti-Trump in Court

Nearly 100 companies, including Apple, Google and Microsoft, banded together on Sunday to file a legal brief opposing President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban, arguing that it "inflicts significant harm on American business," reports Reuters.

The brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, also included Facebook, Twitter N), Intel, eBay, Netflix and Uber as well as non-tech companies such as Levi Strauss and Chobani.

"The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years," the brief from the companies stated.

"The Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth as a result," it added.

Over the weekend, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied the Trump administration's request for an immediate stay of the federal judge's temporary restraining order that blocked nationwide the implementation of key parts of the travel ban.

But the court said it would reconsider the government's request after receiving more information.

The government has until 3 p.m. PST  on Monday to submit additional legal briefs to the appeals court in support of Trump's executive order. Following that, the court is expected to act quickly, and a decision either way may ultimately result in the case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

The companies are doing this for their own self-interest, which is fine, and it is good to see there is some kind of check on Trump.



  1. Those don't sound like legal arguments, but maybe the 9th Circuit does not care. Statute where Congress delegated its constitutional authority (such as it is) to the President:

    8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens. Clause (f) of that law says that

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    1. If the test for the legality of an immigration ban is that the offending immigrants must "be detrimental to the interests of the United States" per the legislation you quoted, then how is it "not a legal argument" for companies to claim that this immigration is not only not detrimental, but actually beneficial?

      To the contrary it seems to go straight to the heart of the issue.

    2. Evan: The language is: "Whenever the President finds..." His finding must be stated in the proclamation, and that appears to the be end of the story. That the companies are almost certainly correct in their arguments appears to be beside the point, given the way Congress wrote the statute.

  2. Cheap talent. That's what it's all about. That's all it's EVER been about.

    1. It's about the freedom to hire cheap talent. Everything else is just petty envy.

  3. Of course, 'libertarians' like RW and others think we need more third world immigration. I would love to see Trump squash the H-1 program and limit green cards. I'm doubtful of these companies need for outside talent. Given the crappy wages and such and competition with foreigners, why would any parent recommend a STEM degree to their child?

    1. Engineers I have known with kids do not want them going into an engineering field. Not only American born but the foreigners and immigrants as well.

    2. Yes, let's keep even more people trapped in poverty and ban companies from utilizing talent so you don't have to teach your kids about economic reality...

    3. I'd like to see RW's comments on Judge Napolitano's thoughts here:

      I wonder if RW thinks the Judge is a Trump 'fanboy?'

      Oh, and for what it's worth, Trump supporters seems like such a more adult way to refer to people than Trump 'fanboys.' The need to use the term 'fanboy' strikes this reader as nothing more than childish behavior. From the comment sections here, I'm clearly not alone.

      Trump isn't gonna be a panacea for libertarians. Not. Even. Close. Trump supporters of a libertarian bent likely know this, Robert. Have you even considered as much. From the tone on your site anymore, I doubt it heavily. Still, it's fun watching the left implode.

      I'll head back over to ZeroHedge and Lew Rockwell now. I'll check back in once in a while to see if RW has finally found his big boy pants.

    4. Re: The Lab Manager,

      --- Of course, 'libertarians' like RW and others think we need more third world immigration ---

      There's no "We", Kemosabe. You can't presume to know what "we" need. What libertarians such as RW or I have been arguing is that each person should be free to transact with an immigrant worker if he or she wishes to. The fact that you want to inject yourself on those transactions say a lot about your own shortcomings, but does not lend justification to an immigration ban.