So far, Ninth Circuit judges have rejected President Trump two executive orders on temporary immigration bans into the United States.  Now that the president has issued an executive order canceling President Obama's executive order sharply restricting coal mining, will environmentalists rush to the chambers of another Ninth Circuit federal judge to get a temporary restraining order to keep the Obama coal ban alive?

U.S. District of Hawaii judge Derrick Watson seems to have accepted hearsay evidence (an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted) in rejecting President Trump's second temporary travel ban on immigration from six terrorist-stricken nations, as had previously been determined by the Obama administration.  Accordingly, what is to prevent another Ninth Circuit jurist from citing claims by, say, the New York Times that President Trump threatens to poison the planet by canceling the Obama ban on coal mining – or the assertion voiced by historian Douglas Brinkley, chatting with Don Imus on March 29 on Imus's radio show, that in canceling the Obama ban, President Trump threatens the purity of our water resources?  (Imus, curiously, did not ask Prof. Brinkley to explain what he meant when he told the Washington Post there is "a smell of treason in the air.")

Judge Watson also cited an alleged adverse impact on universities and tourism in rejecting President Trump's second executive order calling for a pause in immigration from the six terrorist-afflicted countries.  Accordingly, it should not be beyond the imagination of a Ninth Circuit jurist to rule that in allowing coal mining where the Obama moratorium once stood, President Trump threatens the health of academicians in centers of higher learning throughout the circuit, not to mention discouraging visits from tourists to Lake Tahoe, among other Ninth Circuit bodies of water.