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

Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse 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 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: 2667 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   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8. #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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 8.         There are no replies to Comment # 8. End Trace Mode for Comment # 8. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/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