Last night a District Court judge denied the State of Hawaii’s emergency motion to “clarify” how the Trump administration is applying the Supreme Court’s ruling on Travel Order No. 2.

See my post last night, Judge Denies Hawaii request to halt Trump admin interpretation of SCOTUS Travel Order ruling. The District Court judge refused to consider the request to “clarify” his prior injunction, telling the parties to go to the Supreme Court if they want a to interpret the Supreme Court’s Order.

Today Hawaii filed its appeal (pdf.) in the 9th Circuit. A full copy is embedded below.

“The Government began enforcing the non-enjoined portions of the Executive Order on the evening of June 29, 2017, and it continues to enforce them. The guidance the Government has released, the submissions it has made to the District Court, and other public notices together demonstrate that throughout this time the Government has been directing U.S. consulates and refugee processing organizations to deny entry to foreign nationals against whom the Supreme Court held the Order “may not be enforced”—including individuals whose grandparents and other close relatives live in the United States, and numerous refugees with extensive connections to U.S. entities. These actions are grossly unlawful, and they inflict ongoing and irreparable harm to persons in the United States whose relatives and associates are being denied entry to this country each day.

Plaintiffs-Appellants respectfully request that this Court issue an emergency injunction pending appeal of the District Court’s denial of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion for Clarification of Scope of Preliminary Injunction, and that the temporary injunction bar the Government from enforcing the Executive Order in the unlawful manners set forth in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ clarification filings below and Addendum Exhibit B, and explained more fully in the attached Motion filed here.”

The appeal has a new appeal number, so I’m not sure if this goes back to the same panel that upheld the Hawaii Judge’s original injunction (which later was mostly stayed by the Supreme Court), to a different panel, or to a motion judge. Hawaii has suggested the motion be referred to the original panel:

“Because of the urgency, the Court may wish to refer this motion to the panel that ruled on the merits of the case and that issued an earlier order modifying the injunction at issue in this motion.”

This post will be updated


Hawaii v Trump – 9th Circuit – Post SCOTUS Emergency Appeal by Hawaii by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.