Donald Trump says he is 'absolutely' considering breaking up 9th Circuit court after blocked executive orders

Attack comes as two of US President's executive orders are overruled by the judiciary 

Lucy Pasha-Robinson
Wednesday 26 April 2017 22:40
Comments
District judges within the 9th Circuit ruled against Mr Trump's travel ban that sought to block citizens from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US temporarily.
District judges within the 9th Circuit ruled against Mr Trump's travel ban that sought to block citizens from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US temporarily.

Donald Trump is reportedly considering disbanding the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after judges blocked two of his executive orders.

Mr Trump said he was "absolutely" considering proposals to breakup the "outrageous" court.

"Absolutely, I have," Mr Trump told the Washington Examiner of considering breakup proposals. "There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous."

"Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that's like, semi-automatic."

The US President also took to Twitter to criticise the body earlier in the day, saying: "First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!"

The attack comes after two of the former real estate mogul's executive orders were overruled by the judicial system.

Judges within the Ninth Circuit ruled in February against Mr Trump's travel ban that sought to block citizens from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US temporarily. On Tuesday, a district judge in San Francisco ruled against a separate order that aimed to cut funding to so-called sanctuary cities.

The ruling came after San Francisco and Santa Clara County asked the courts to intervene, arguing that more than $1 billion was at stake for each of them.

US District Judge William Orrick III said it was clear the Trump administration planned to use the order to block funding for more than just law enforcement, as federal lawyers had argued. Judge Orrick does not, in fact, sit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, although the Ninth Circuit would be responsible for hearing any appeal against his ruling. The distinction appeared to be lost on the President.

Meanwhile, press secretary Sean Spicer called the block an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge".

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in