US Supreme Court Tag

Yesterday Justice Kennedy issued a temporary stay of the 9th Circuit's ruling as to refugees, whose entry is put on hold under the Trump Travel Order No. 2. Today the full Supreme Court granted the stay:

The application for stay of mandate presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is granted, and the issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case No. 17-16426 is stayed with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending further order of this Court.

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 Supreme Court has ruled on the Trump administration's Motion for Clarification and for a Stay of the Hawaii Order significantly scaling back implementation of Travel Order No. 2. The 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:

Hawaii just filed its Opposition (pdf.) to the Trump administration's request for clarification of the Supreme Court's prior ruling as to Travel Order No. 2, and to stay the Hawaii federal District Court's Order significantly scaling back the Trump administration's interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling. A full copy of the Opposition papers is embedded at the bottom of this post. We covered the issues in our prior post, Trump asks Supreme Court halt Hawaii Court ruling on Travel Order:

In the ongoing saga over the lower federal courts' attempt to usurp presidential power over who may enter the country, the Trump administration late last night filed a request for the Supreme Court to review and to halt the Hawaii federal court order that dramatically scaled back Trump's Travel Order No. 2. As described in our post about the Hawaii Order, we noted that those exempted from the Order extend far beyond the "close familial" relations as described in the prior Supreme Court ruling which substantially overruled the Hawaii Court's prior preliminary injunction. Those exempted, according to the Hawaii federal court, include:

A federal judge in Hawaii has just granted in part, and denied in part, the State of Hawaii's motion to enforce an injunction issued prior to the Supreme Court ruling as to Trump's Travel Order No. 2. The key issue was who would be considered to have a "bona fide" connection to the United States under the Supreme Court ruling, such that they would be excluded from Travel Order No. 2 restrictions on entry. A full copy of the Order is embedded at the bottom of this post. (pdf.) For background, see this prior post, Twice rejected, Hawaii goes to court AGAIN to halt Trump Travel Order implementation

We previously wrote how the State of Hawaii (with co-plaintiff Dr. Ismail Elshikh) struck out in Hawaii federal court and in the 9th Circuit, in seeking "clarification" of how Trump's Travel Order No. 2 was to be implemented in light of the prior court injunctions and the Supreme Court's substantial overruling of those injunctions:

• Judge Denies Hawaii request to halt Trump admin interpretation of SCOTUS Travel Order ruling
• 9th Circuit DENIES Hawaii request for Emergency Injunction over Trump Travel Order

The key problem identified by the court was the Hawaii's request for "clarification" was not proper. The District Court ruled that if Hawaii wanted clarification of a Supreme Court Order, it should seek such clarification from the Supreme Court:

The 9th Circuit just issued an Order denying the State of Hawaii's Emergency Motion for an Injunction. For details on the motion, see our post earlier today, Hawaii seeks injunction from 9th Circuit to halt Trump application of SCOTUS Travel Ruling. The Court issued its Order without even waiting for the Trump administration to respond, and was issued by the same panel of Judges as decided the original appeal, which the Supreme Court substantially overrode. The full 9th Circuit Order (pdf.) is embedded below.

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 State of Hawaii sought an emergency ruling from the Hawaii federal judge whose original injunction against Trump Travel Order No. 2 was mostly overturned by the Supreme Court. We covered the emergency request in our post, Hawaii seeks injunction against Trump admin interpretation of SCOTUS Travel Order ruling. The main issue was how the Trump administration was applying the test the Supreme Court established for who would be exempt from the blanket country-wide prohibition on visa entry. The Supreme Court reinstated substantially all of Trump’s Travel Order No. 2, but the Supreme Court carved out an exception for people who have a “bona fide” relationship to the U.S. Such persons could not be subjected to a blanket, country-wide prohibition from entering the U.S. (emphasis added):

When the Supreme Court reinstated substantially all of Trump's Travel Order No. 2, the Supreme Court carved out an exception for people who have a "bona fide" relationship to the U.S. Such persons could not be subjected to a blanket, country-wide prohibition from entering the U.S. (emphasis added):

We accordingly grant the Government’s stay applications in part and narrow the scope of the injunctions as to §2(c). The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2….