The State of Hawaii and the Trump administration have jointly requested that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals expedite consideration of the Trump administration’s request for a stay of a Hawaii District Court preliminary injunction that significantly curtailed the implementation of Travel Order No. 2.

The request comes just days after the Supreme Court ruled on the Trump administration’s request for “clarification” and a stay. The Supreme Court denied the request for “clarification,” granted a stay of the Hawaii Order on refugees, and was silent (de facto denial) of a stay as to relatives:

The Government’s motion seeking clarification of our order of June 26, 2017, is denied. The District Court order modifying the preliminary injunction with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance is stayed pending resolution of the Government’s appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would have stayed the District Court order in its entirety.

We covered the substantive issues in these posts:

There was a previously filed Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal filed in the 9th Circuit by the Trump administration, anticipating that the Supreme Court might defer ruling until the 9th Circuit heard the request. In light of the Supreme Court ruling, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Revise and Expedite Briefing Schedule:

On July 14, 2017, this Court docketed this appeal and issued a briefing schedule, by which the opening brief and excerpts of record are currently due August 11, 2007; the answering brief September 8, 2017, or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief within 21 days after service of the answering brief.

The parties have conferred and jointly move for the following expedited briefing schedule:

July 27, 2017 – opening brief and excerpts of record
August 3, 2017 – answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record (if any)
August 9, 2017 – reply brief

The parties believe expedition of the briefing schedule is appropriate given the urgency of the issues involved in this preliminary injunction appeal.

Given the need for expedition, and the nature of the underlying issues presented on appeal, the parties believe that the appeal can be resolved without oral argument. Should the Court believe that argument would be useful, however, the parties respectfully request that argument be scheduled as soon as practicable following the conclusion of briefing.

Expediting briefing and ruling makes sense since this case is scheduled for hearing on the merits at the Supreme Court in October.

The 9th Circuit panel assigned to this case already is familiar with the issues, so I could expect a quick ruling.