Please verify

Blaze Media
Watch LIVE

Judge Jeanine, Bill O'Reilly predict how Supreme Court could handle Trump travel ban case

Image source: Fox News

Fox News hosts Judge Jeanine Pirro and Bill O'Reilly agreed Thursday night that if President Donald Trump's Middle East travel ban case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the justices will vote to toss out the case because the plaintiffs don't have standing to bring it.

O'Reilly made the "prediction" Thursday on "The O'Reilly Factor." The comment aired on the same evening the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed Trump a major defeat, ruling unanimously to reject the Trump administration's request to stay a U.S. district's court temporary restraining order on Trump's executive action, temporarily banning travel to the U.S. by people in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya.

The Trump administration can either appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling to a higher court or re-write the executive order to eliminate any legal or constitutional concerns. The White House has not announced how exactly it intends to move forward, although Trump showed no sign of giving up.

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE," the president tweeted Thursday night.

But as far as O'Reilly and Pirro are concerned, Trump doesn't have anything to worry about when it comes to whether the order is legal.

"I'm going to make a prediction here and stun the world. The Supreme Court is going to throw this out because Washington State and Minnesota don't have standing to bring it," O'Reilly said.

Pirro agreed, saying, "That's exactly the point."

"And by standing that means they do not have a direct, immediate interest," the judge explained.

"It's a third party interest, maybe, as opposed to the interest of the United States of America, the people, the citizens," she added.

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson made the case Wednesday against Trump's travel ban before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ferguson was arguing on behalf of Washington State and the state of Minnesota.

In the appellate court's ruling, Judges William Canby Richard Clifton and Michelle Friedland unanimously agreed that the states did, in fact, have standing because the order made it impossible for public college students and faculty to travel freely in the seven countries listed by Trump's order.

These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit. Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.

Pirro blasted the notoriously liberal court Thursday, arguing that constitutional rights apply only to U.S. citizens and any foreign citizen currently in the U.S. Pirro further argued that American constitutional rights do not apply to any foreign citizen who is not already on American soil.

"You're going to tell me that a citizen of another country who we don't even know, whose country won't even tell us who that person is, has primacy over the United States citizen and that the president of the United States has to tell a federal judge why under Section 8 Article I of the constitution of the United States ... has the primacy and gives the president the power?" Pirro said.

The section of the Constitution cited by Pirro focuses on the role of both Congress and the president in passing federal legislation and signing it into law. Article II Section I grants the president "executive power."

Pirro continued by saying the idea that foreign citizens somehow have priority over Americans citizens is "hogwash."

"The Supreme Court will give Trump the win on this," Pirro said.

Most recent
All Articles