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

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


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: 2628
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.

#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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 15.

#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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.

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