[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Officer in nurse arrest was reprimanded for sex harassment

Is anybody wathching Trump on TV?

Hillary Clinton: Women Only Voted For Trump Because Their Husbands Told Them To

Entire Volume of CIA Files On Lee Harvey Oswald, Set to Be Released in October, Has ‘Gone Missing’

Cops Execute Student for Holding a “Tiny” Multi-tool

7 Best Video Sites, YouTube Alternatives

Hobby Lobby’s ‘offensive’ decoration

America's Broken System: Left & Right Authoritarianism

Workmen Allegedly Find Bone Fragments of Saint Peter Inside Medieval Altar in Rome

"Shut down ICE!": Amnesty activists shout down Pelosi over DREAM deal with Trump

Hillary Clinton still wants to challenge election results

An Unworthy Pope

Hollywood is finished - TV ... in the sense they influence - steer the public --- for the exception of the uninformed zombie radical left communists Antifa types.

Video shows purse snatching from elderly woman in scooter at Burbank Ralphs

Profs: Boys are better at physics because they play ‘pee games’

NO AMNESTY IS A GOOD AMNESTY(Ann Coulter)

Trump Let a Kid Mow the White House Lawn. Idiot Asks: What About Child Labor Laws?

Kim Jong Un - Rocketman

Catholic Internet poster -God raised a lizard and a mouse from the dead because I said please. Claims God healed his broken neck and spine. Also says Christ does not treat Christians' diabetes or cancer. He let's them bear that cross, die

Biblical prophecy claims the world will end on Sept. 23, Christian numerologists claim

Should You Tell the Cops You Have a Gun?

WHY "FAITH ALONE" SALVATION IS WRONG! (From a Protestant)

83-Year-Old Grandpa Saves the Day By Pushing Suspect Off Roof

Liberals sick of the alt-left are taking 'the red pill'

My Father Died This Morning

Another Reason for the Electric Car Push?

The 28 States Where a Little Pot Can Still Send You to Jail

When cops commit armed robbery

How Bullwinkle Taught Kids Sophisticated Political Satire

Seeing Is Not Believing: Steel and Concrete Became Mid-Air Dust on 9/11

Rosie O’Donnell’s ex Michelle Rounds dead in apparent suicide

Praying repetitive words using Rosary beads is forbidden

Trump Extends Post-9/11 State of Emergency

The commie push leaves standing what it will

15 September 2017 Charles Spurgeon Devotion

Shapiro to Antifa: America is laughing at your inferior intellect, you know

Sweden Releases Sex Guide for Migrants Explaining Why Rape Is Wrong

Mayor: Investigation found arrest of nurse broke policies

Police culture questioned after phone recordings come to light

Tucker Carlson on DACA and Shamnesty

Trump Backpedals on Amnesty Deal After Massive Blowback from Base

Rand Worries Trump Has Caught ‘Potomac Fever’ in Pursuit of DACA Deal

A "Read-My-Lips" Moment for Trump?

"WHO AM I TO JUDGE A GAY PERSON?" says Pope Francis

Old Think

Janet Reno, American Saint

Curse of the Woke Conservatives

isn't time we put a stop to this?

NFL TV Ratings Slump Again

Report: Trump Caves on DACA, Wants ‘Quick’ Amnesty for 800K Illegal Aliens


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Trump Illegal Alien Executive Orders - Follow the Litigation Bouncing Ball
Source: SCOTUS, 9th Circuit, and DC Hawaii
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 11, 2017
Author: nolu chan
Post Date: 2017-09-11 22:20:17 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 141
Comments: 17

Trump Illegal Alien Executive Orders - Follow the Litigation Bouncing Ball

nolu chan
September 11, 2017

Today, the Trump Administration filed an Application with SCOTUS for a Stay of a recent 9th Circus opinion which upheld a District Court of Hawaii opinion. Today's application for a stay asserted of the 9th Circus, "Despite this Court’s rulings, last Thursday the Ninth Circuit affirmed the entire modified injunction. The court of appeals did not even attempt to reconcile its decision with this Court’s July 19 Order. Instead, the court of appeals deferred to the district court’s interpretation of this Court’s June 26 stay ruling."

In short order, today Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an Order stating, "IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case No. 17-16426, is hereby stayed with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending receipt of a response, due on or before Tuesday, September 12, 2017, by 12 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court. "

That is harsh, requiring a response by noon tomorrow. It may be that Justice Kennedy is not amused by the antics of the 9th Circus upholding the District of Hawaii on the basis of the District interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2017cv00050/132721/270/

Hawaii v. Trump, DCHI 17-cv-00050 (29 Mar 2017)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONVERT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On March 15, 2017, the Court temporarily enjoined Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 13,780, entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017). See Order Granting Mot. for TRO, ECF No. 219 [hereinafter TRO]. Plaintiffs State of Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh, Ph.D., now move to convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction. See Pls.’ Mot. to Convert TRO to Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 238 [hereinafter Motion].

Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, and following a hearing on March 29, 2017, the Court concludes that, on the record before it, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is not issued, and that the balance of the equities and public interest counsel in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 238) is

GRANTED.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Trump v. Intl Refugee Assistance Project, et al, (16436), (16A1190); Trump v. Hawaii, et al, (16-1540) (16-A1191), S. Ct. 582 U.S. ____ (26 June 2017), per curiam,

These cases involve challenges to Executive Order No. 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign TerroristEntry Into the United States. The order alters practicesconcerning the entry of foreign nationals into the United States by, among other things, suspending entry of na­tionals from six designated countries for 90 days. Re­spondents challenged the order in two separate lawsuits.They obtained preliminary injunctions barring enforce­ment of several of its provisions, including the 90-day suspension of entry. The injunctions were upheld in largemeasure by the Courts of Appeals.

The Government filed separate petitions for certiorari,as well as applications to stay the preliminary injunctions entered by the lower courts. We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.

http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2017cv00050/132721/322/0.pdf

Hawaii v. Trump, DCHI 17-cv-00050 (6 July 2017)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/general/cases_of_interest/17-15589%20per%20curiam%20opinion.pdf

Hawaii v. Trump, 17-16426 (9th Cir., 7 Sept. 2017), per curiam,

"enjoins the Government from enforcing Executive Order 13789 against (1) grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States; and (2) refugees who have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (“USRAP”) through the Lautenberg Amendment.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that in modifying the preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo, the district court carefully and correctly balanced the hardships and the equitable considerations as directed by the Supreme Court in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2088 (2017), and did not abuse its discretion. We affirm.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/17A275-Trump-v.-Hawaii-App.-Stay-1.pdf

Trump v. Hawaii, S. Ct. 16-1540, APPLICATION FOR A STAY of the Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Affirming the Modified Prelminary Injunction (11 Sept. 2017)

More than two months ago, on June 26, 2017, this Court granted certiorari to review two nationwide preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of Executive Order 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 9, 2017) (Order). Only the injunction in this case barred enforcement of the refugee restrictions in Section 6(a) and (b) of the Order. As relevant here, the Court partially stayed that injunction to allow the Order’s refugee provisions to “take effect,” except as applied to refugees who have a bona fide “relationship with” a U.S. individual or entity. Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2089 (2017) (per curiam) (IRAP). Several weeks later, when the district court in this case modified its injunction and severely undermined this Court’s stay as to the refugee provisions, the Court again intervened and unanimously granted a second stay. 16-1540 Order (July 19, 2017) (July 19 Order). In so doing, the Court necessarily determined that the government was likely to succeed in challenging the modification of the injunction with respect to refugees. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-435 (2009).

Despite this Court’s rulings, last Thursday the Ninth Circuit affirmed the entire modified injunction. The court of appeals did not even attempt to reconcile its decision with this Court’s July 19 Order. Instead, the court of appeals deferred to the district court’s interpretation of this Court’s June 26 stay ruling. The Ninth Circuit thus upheld the district court’s determination that a refugee is exempt from the Order if a U.S. resettlement agency has made a promise to the federal government (known as an “assurance,” Addendum (Add.) 25) to provide services to the refugee when the refugee arrives in this country, notwithstanding that such agencies typically do not have any pre-arrival contact with the refugee himself. That conclusion effectively reads out of this Court’s June 26 stay ruling its requirement that the refugee have a “relationship with” a U.S. entity, IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2089, and it requires the admission of refugees who have no connection to the United States independent of the refugee-admission process itself.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/17A275-Trump-v.-Hawaii-Temp-Stay-Resp-Order-9-11-17.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States

No. 17A275

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,
Applicants
v.
HAWAII, ET AL.

O R D E R

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,

IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case No. 17-16426, is hereby stayed with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending receipt of a response, due on or before Tuesday, September 12, 2017, by 12 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.

/s/ Anthony M. Kennedy
Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States

Dated this 11th
day of September, 2017.

... To be continued.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nolu chan (#0)

That is harsh, requiring a response by noon tomorrow. It may be that Justice Kennedy is not amused by the antics of the 9th Circus upholding the District of Hawaii on the basis of the District interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation.

Actually, it's months overdue. What took him so long?

I'd prefer that Texas and the other dozen states had moved ahead to have DACA stricken down. It was a mistake to let Trump give himself another six months extension on 0bama's unconstitutional power grab. And in 6 months, he'll almost certainly extend it again. So he'll end up being just as big a scofflaw as 0bama was.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-11   22:59:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)

It was a mistake to let Trump give himself another six months extension on 0bama's unconstitutional power grab. And in 6 months, he'll almost certainly extend it again. So he'll end up being just as big a scofflaw as 0bama was.

Power grab? Trump is actually attempting to realign US Constitutional objectives stripped away from Presidential Orders.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-11   23:26:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: buckeroo (#2)

nolu assembled this material, wrote it all himself.

And the best you can do is show up to snipe at one of my comments (which was tangential, being about the DACA lawsuit)?

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-11   23:32:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)

And the best you can do is show up to snipe at one of my comments (which was tangential, being about the DACA lawsuit)?

Yeah.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-11   23:38:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: buckeroo (#2) (Edited)

Trump is actually attempting to realign US Constitutional objectives stripped away from Presidential Orders.

Actually, DACA does not involve a presidential order. It was implemented by a DHS Memorandum signed by Janet Napolitano.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-12   1:00:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: nolu chan (#5)

Didn't 0bama issue an executive memorandum telling Napolitano to implement DACA?

I don't see anything in Napolitano's memo that authorizes SS to issue SS numbers to these illegals. Or to issue work permits. Or to collect the self-funding DACA application fee (around $500). Or anything about a 2-year renewal of the DACA work/school permit, etc.

There is a lot more to DACA implementation than just this one memo from Napolitano.

We hear of DACA being implemented by executive order. This is an order to a cabinet official or agency to implement a particular policy and the onus falls on the president and a cabinet official or agency head who defies an executive order can expect to be fired for insubordination to the president. There are also executive memos, which are more like an authorization by the president for a cabinet official or agency to implement a policy but which does not directly order them to take that action. Then there is the rather vague "executive action" which seems like a very ver gray area of presidential power.

I think DACA was in the realm of "executive action" across a number of agencies. ICE, DHS, SSA and others were affected by this.

I kinda hate even mentioning this since it drags us further off-topic but the question does arise when you understand that 0bama never did issue an executive order in June 2012 to authorize DACA. You can find no end of articles telling us that he did so but no matching DACA EO in the Federal Register. The Federal Register only records executive orders, not executive memos or "executive actions".

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-12   7:59:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: nolu chan (#0)

That is harsh, requiring a response by noon tomorrow. It may be that Justice Kennedy is not amused by the antics of the 9th Circus upholding the District of Hawaii on the basis of the District interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation.

It still seems to me that Kennedy is just rapping the knuckles of the Ninth Circus for pushing their agenda. More along the lines of Kennedy being angry that a lower court rather blatantly defied a USSC ruling than that Kennedy has suddenly awakened to enforcing the rule of law. Kennedy seems to me more worried that the Ninth Circus respect the USSC, not that he disagrees with them fundamentally.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-12   8:02:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: All (#0)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/17A275-Trump-v.-Hawaii-App.-Stay-Resp..pdf

No. 16-1540 (16A-1191)

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Applicants,

v.

STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,
Respondents.

RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE MANDATE

September 12, 2017

[List of attorneys omitted.]

INTRODUCTION

The Government has returned to this Court, for the third time, to ask that it superintend the application of the injunction in this case. The first time the Government was here, on June 26, 2017, this Court set forth the legal standard that governs the injunction of Executive Order 13,780 (“EO-2”): Any foreign national with a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. entity—that is, a relationship that is “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course”—is protected from EO-2’s travel and refugee bans. Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project (“IRAP”), 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2088 (2017). The second time, on July 19, 2017, the Court denied the Government’s request to “clarify” that the injunction does not apply to refugees who have received a formal assurance from a refugee resettlement agency, instead directing the Ninth Circuit to resolve the question. Order, Trump v. Hawaii, 16-1540 (U.S. July 19, 2017).

The Ninth Circuit faithfully applied both of those directives. It determined— after reviewing hundreds of pages of declarations and exhibits, conducting full briefing, and hearing oral argument—that a refugee has a “bona fide” relationship with a resettlement agency that signs a formal, written assurance to provide for her housing, food, and other essentials of life. And the Ninth Circuit rejected the Government’s invitation to treat this Court’s July 19, 2017 stay as the merits decision the Court had declined to issue; instead, it performed the diligent analysis that is expected of an appellate court.

[2]

Nonetheless, the Government is back. It now demands that, in addition to setting forth the legal standard and directing the Ninth Circuit to apply it, this Court must engage in its own factbound review of the refugee-resettlement process in order to determine for itself whether the lower courts correctly applied the established standard to the record. Moreover, it asks the Court to engage in this complex factual inquiry mere weeks before hearing this case on the merits— insisting that the Court devote its immediate attention to ensuring that every possible refugee is excluded.

That is not this Court’s role. The lower courts, not this Court, are “best qualified to deal with the flinty, intractable realities of day-to-day implementation of” the Court’s “constitutional commands.” United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 184 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court laid out a legal standard. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit diligently and correctly applied it. And contrary to the Government’s hyperbole, they have not rendered the stay “functionally inoperative”: The Government retains the authority to bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country, as indeed it has done for months. The lower courts have simply applied this Court’s standard to protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores. The Government’s motion should be denied.

BACKGROUND

1. On June 26, 2017, this Court issued an order that stayed in part the Hawaii District Court’s injunction of Sections 2(c) and 6 of EO-2. This Court

[3]

approved of the manner in which the District Court had “balance[d] the equities” with respect to U.S. persons “who have relationships with foreign nationals abroad, and whose rights might be affected if those foreign nationals were excluded.” IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2087. But the Court held that the equities “do not balance the same way” for aliens “who have no connection to the United States at all,” and whose exclusion “does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national.” Id. at 2088. Excluding such aliens, the Court explained, would “prevent the Government from * * * enforcing” EO-2 “without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else.” Id.

The Court therefore “narrow[ed] the scope of the injunctions.” Id. It held that Section 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.” Id. For “individuals,” it explained, “a close familial relationship is required”; foreign nationals “like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law[] clearly ha[ve] such a relationship.” Id. “As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO-2.” Id. As examples of foreign nationals with such relationships, the Court listed “students * * * who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii,” “worker[s] who accepted an offer of employment from an American company,” and “lecturer[s] invited to address an American audience.” Id.

The Court also explained that the same “equitable balance” applies to EO-2’s refugee provisions, and thus prohibits the Government from invoking Section 6(a)

[4]

or (b) to bar refugees with whom “[a]n American individual or entity * * * has a bona fide relationship,” such that the American individual or entity “can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that [refugee] is excluded.” Id. at 2089.

2. Three days after this Court’s ruling—and after repeatedly rebuffing respondents’ requests for any information about its plans—the Government issued guidance concerning its interpretation of this Court’s stay. As relevant, the Government interpreted the term “close famil[y]” as limited largely to an alien’s immediate family, and so excluded grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, siblings-in-law, and cousins. The Government also stated that a refugee who had received a formal assurance from a refugee resettlement agency lacked a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. entity sufficient to fall within the scope of this Court’s stay.

Plaintiffs filed a motion in the District Court requesting that it modify its injunction to make clear that the Government was barred from enforcing EO-2 against these individuals. On July 13, 2017, the District Court granted the requested relief. It explained that the Government’s definition of close family “finds no support in the careful language of the Supreme Court or even in the immigration statutes on which the Government relies.” Hawaii v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017 WL 2989048, at *5 (D. Haw. July 13, 2017). It further explained that a formal assurance from a resettlement agency “meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones” for a “bona fide relationship”: “it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, * * * it is issued specific to

[5]

an individual refugee * * * , and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades.” Id. at *7.

3. The Government appealed the District Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit and, at the same time, sought review of that decision directly in this Court. The Government asked the Court to “clarify” that its partial stay order did not protect grandparents, grandchildren, and other close relatives of U.S. persons, or refugees with a formal assurance from a resettlement agency. Petitioners’ Mot. for Clarification 19, Trump v. Hawaii, No. 16-1540 (July 14, 2017) (“S. Ct. Mot.”). In the alternative, the Government proposed that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus or “construe [its] motion as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, grant certiorari, and vacate the district court’s modified injunction.” Id. at 17-18. Lastly, the Government stated that “if the Court concludes that the court of appeals should address the correctness of the district court’s interpretation of this Court’s stay ruling in the first instance,” it should “grant a stay of the district court’s modified injunction pending disposition of that appeal” so as to “minimize the disruption and practical difficulties” the modified injunction would ostensibly cause. Id. at 39; see also Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Mot. for Clarification 3, 14-15, Trump v. Hawaii, No. 16-1540 (U.S. July 18, 2017) (“S. Ct. Reply”).

On July 19, 2017, this Court summarily denied the Government’s motion for clarification. Order, Trump v. Hawaii, No. 16-1540 (U.S. July 19, 2017). It also declined to grant mandamus or certiorari. But this Court granted in part the Government’s request for a stay pending appeal, stating that “[t]he District Court

[6]

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.” Id.

4. The Ninth Circuit held full briefing on the merits of the Government’s appeal. The appellate record consisted of hundreds of pages of declarations and exhibits, briefs from a resettlement agency and other interested parties, and numerous Government documents describing the resettlement and refugee admissions process. The court also conducted an oral argument on August 28, 2017.

On September 7, the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous per curiam opinion affirming the District Court’s modified injunction in full. The court first concluded that the Government “unreasonably interpret[ed] the Supreme Court’s reference to ‘close familial relationship[s].” Add. 13 (quoting IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2088) (brackets in original). As the court explained, the Government’s definition of “close famil[y]” relied on “cherry-pick[ing]” certain provisions of the immigration laws that favored its position while ignoring others that did not. Add. 17. The court also deemed the Government’s cramped definition irreconcilable with this Court’s holding that “a mother-in-law is clearly a bona fide relationship.” Add. 15.

The Ninth Circuit further determined that refugees with a formal assurance from a resettlement agency have a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. entity. The court explained that resettlement agencies engage in an “intensive process” to match refugees to resources “even before the refugee is admitted.” Add. 27. As the court noted: “These efforts, which the formal assurance embodies, evince a bona

[7]

fide relationship between a resettlement agency and a refugee, and further demonstrate the hardship inflicted on an agency if a refugee is not admitted.” Id. at 27-28. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court that refugees with a formal assurance meet “the requirements set out by the Court”: They have relationships that are “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading” EO-2. Add. 31 (quoting IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2088).

The Ninth Circuit stated that its mandate would issue within five days. As it explained: “Refugees’ lives remain in vulnerable limbo during the pendency of the Supreme Court’s stay,” and “[e]ven short delays may prolong a refugee’s admittance.” Add. 35.

5. Four days later, the Government filed its motion in this Court, challenging only the portion of the Ninth Circuit’s decision regarding resettlement agencies. On September 11, Justice Kennedy stayed that aspect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision pending further order by Justice Kennedy or of the Court.

ARGUMENT

I. THIS COURT’S INTERVENTION IS UNWARRANTED.

The Government has returned to this Court, for the third time in as many months, to ask it to review the application of the Court’s interim stay judgment to a highly fact-intensive scenario that has already been considered in close detail by two lower courts. This Court does not typically involve itself in such matters— indeed, neither respondents nor the Government has identified any comparable instance in which this Court has reviewed the application of a stay pending appeal

[8]

to a set of facts. On the contrary, this Court has summarily rejected such requests. See, e.g., Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 448 U.S. 905 (1980); see also Daniel B. v. O’Bannon, 588 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (explaining that the Pennhurst Court “declined to disturb [the lower courts’] interpretation of its stay”).

This case should not be the first. The primary form of relief the Government requests—a stay pending resolution of the underlying merits of the case—is categorically improper. No statute or precedent authorizes the Government to obtain a stay of a judgment that this Court will never have an opportunity to review. And the Government’s alternative request that the Court summarily reverse the Ninth Circuit’s factbound stay decision, one month before this Court hears the case on the merits, is equally inappropriate.

[snip]

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-12   15:28:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Tooconservative (#6)

Here are some links that may be useful for searching:

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/2014-executive-actions-immigration

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2017&Submit=DISPLAY

Didn't 0bama issue an executive memorandum telling Napolitano to implement DACA?

Not that I know of. He made an announcement in the Rose Garden informing the press of the implementing memorandum issued by Janet Napolitano.

We hear of DACA being implemented by executive order.

We sure do. We also hear of DREAMERs and the DREAM Act. There is not, and never has been, a DREAM Act. On three seperate occasions, a DREAM bill failed in Congress and never became an Act. Technically, DACA is Napolitano's Homeland Security effort. As you have pointed out, finding an actual authorization for many Obama Administration actions is a challenge.

I think DACA was in the realm of "executive action" across a number of agencies.

It just depends on how generically the term executive action is used. DACA is most definitely a policy of the Executive branch. At its core, that is all that DACA is — a policy statement. A memo from the Secretary of Homeland Security is an executive action. That is quite distinct from a Presidential Executive Order, or Presidential Executive Memorandum or Presidential Proclamation.

Consider the DHS implementing memo,

This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here.

It is all smoke and mirrors.

I kinda hate even mentioning this since it drags us further off-topic but the question does arise when you understand that 0bama never did issue an executive order in June 2012 to authorize DACA. You can find no end of articles telling us that he did so but no matching DACA EO in the Federal Register. The Federal Register only records executive orders, not executive memos or "executive actions".

I provided a link, above, where you can find Presidential Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda, and Presidential Proclamations easier than mucking about in the Federal Register.

There is no Presidential Executive Order for DACA. It really was a policy statement of the Department of Homeland Security.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-12   16:09:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Tooconservative (#7)

It still seems to me that Kennedy is just rapping the knuckles of the Ninth Circus for pushing their agenda.

It is hard to tell with the court. Kennedy could also be rushing it so he can kick the Trump administration to the curb quickly. I should think that whatever he is going to do, it should not take too long to get it done.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-12   16:12:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nolu chan (#10)

Maybe Kennedy is just feeling peckish toward the Ninth Circus. Someone should have clipped their wings decades back. They're a laughingstock and it is the job of the USSC to put them in their place.

Some withering prose in a USSC decision overturning another of their cases, disparaging their professionalism and juridical process would be a decent start. Toss in some cheap shots about politician wannabes hiding behind a black robe.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-12   20:05:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

Let's try to get back on-topic.

TheRightScoop: Supreme Court PERMANENTLY blocks 9th Circuit ruling limiting Trump ban…

So yesterday when the SCOTUS said Trump could go on his merry way with his travel ban, they said it was temporary – now they’re saying he’s good all around.

From the Hill:
The Supreme Court agreed late Tuesday to lift restrictions on President Trump’s travel ban until further notice, allowing the administration to continue barring most refugees under the ban.

Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday temporarily blocked the part of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that barred the government from prohibiting refugees that have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program from entering the U.S.

Take THAT, Ninth Circuit!!
Kennedy issued the stay pending the receipt of a response from the state of Hawaii, which was due by noon on Tuesday. Late in the day, the court issued an order blocking the decision indefinitely.

In a one-page order, the court said the application for stay of a mandate presented to Kennedy and by him referred to the court is granted.

The Supreme Court is still gonna take up the case in October, so even this permanent block is temporary, BUT all signs point to their decision going in favor of Trump’s ban….

So it sounds like Kennedy had the backing of the full Court or at least 4 conservative colleagues to constitute a majority. It would seem to me, amateur observer that I am, that some of the Left justices must have tried to challenge Kennedy's ruling yesterday or there would have been no further hearing late today from the full Court on Kennedy's stay order. They would have just let it stand as is.

Anyway, I couldn't resist posting the follow-up...

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-12   21:15:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Tooconservative (#12)

You beat me to it.

In a brief ORDER, the requested stay was granted. This means at least four other justices joined with Justice Kennedy. Oral arguments are set to start October 10th.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091217zr_h3ci.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 582 U.S.)

TUESDAY , SEPTEMBER 12 , 2017

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

17A275 (16-1540)

TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. HAWAII, ET AL.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-12   21:27:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan (#13)

You beat me to it.

I have to admit, I'm feeling pretty smug.

What now? Wait for a month until the Supremes hear it, then another six months to learn the result (assuming the Court doesn't ultimately turn against Trump's EO in which case they would probably release the stay)?

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-12   21:46:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: nolu chan (#13)

So, a question related to my previous post.

If the Supremes hear the case in October but don't announce the result until next June or so, doesn't that mean that Trump gets an uninterrupted 6-month freeze on these visas and refugees when he only was after a 90-day freeze in his EO?

Hence my question about whether the justices might, after deciding the case, announce the results early to remove the stay if they don't decide in Trump's favor? I'm sure cases with stays involved have been before the Court many times but I don't recall hearing that they released a stay even if they decided a case that would overturn a stay order.

I suppose it is academic now. The Court seems likely to have already tipped its hand by backing Kennedy's stay. The only way Trump's EO fails now is if Anthony Kennedy himself turns against it, always a possibility.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-13   8:29:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Tooconservative (#15)

If the Supremes hear the case in October but don't announce the result until next June or so, doesn't that mean that Trump gets an uninterrupted 6-month freeze on these visas and refugees when he only was after a 90-day freeze in his EO? ... The only way Trump's EO fails now is if Anthony Kennedy himself turns against it, always a possibility.

It appears safe until SCOTUS says otherwise. It may take more than Kennedy. There were two other Orders yesterday in which the redistricting orders of the District Court were stayed. Each specifically noted that Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan JJ. would deny the application. It is at least possible that the unstated majority in the Trump case may have been greater than 5-4.

SCOTUS - Texas redistricting Orders of August 15, 24 stayed

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091217zr3_4g15.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 582 U.S.)

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

17A245

ABBOTT, GOV. OF TX, ET AL. V. PEREZ, SHANNON, ET AL.

The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. SA-11-CV-360, entered August 24, 2017, is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of an appeal to this Court.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091217zr2_ba7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 582 U.S.)

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

17A225 ABBOTT, GOV. OF TX, ET AL. V. PEREZ, SHANNON, ET AL.

The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. SA-11-CV-360, entered August 15, 2017, is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of an appeal to this Court.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-13   20:15:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#16)

Those Lefty justices march in total lockstep.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-13   21:28:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com