When the Supreme Court handed down its decision on the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban, the morning unfolded largely as anticipated: By a 5-4 vote, the justices upheld the president’s proclamation on relatively narrow statutory grounds and chose to ignore his many expressions of hatred toward Muslims and Islam. There was a sharp dissent—in this case, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And there was, of course, a presidential tweet.
Latest in Hawaii v. Trump
As I expected, the Supreme Court has upheld President Trump’s travel ban (EO-3).
This morning, I attended oral arguments in Trump v. Hawaii. The only surprise (and a pleasant one at that) was that Lin-Manuel Miranda—the creator of the Broadway smash hit Hamilton—was kind enough to sign my pocket Constitution. (If I had a copy of my pleading in the emoluments clause litigation, I would have asked him to sign that instead.)
The Supreme Court has just granted certiorari in Hawaii’s challenge to the September 2017 iteration of President Trump’s travel ban (EO-3).
Earlier this week, Judge Derrick K. Watson of the U.S. District Court in Hawaii concluded that President Donald Trump’s Sept. 24, 2017 proclamation will likely be found to be illegal. Following the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Hawaii v.
The Ninth Circuit held in a per curiam order on Thursday (summarized here) that, pending a definitive adjudication on the merits, refugees abroad with sponsorship assurances from U.S. resettlement agencies were not covered by President Trump’s revised executive order (EO) on refugees and could enter the U.S. in the normal course of refugee resettlement.
Yesterday, Hawaii posted a response to the government’s request to the Supreme Court to stay Hawaii District Court Judge Derrick Watson’s injunction regarding President Trump’s Refugee Executive Order (EO). The response argues that Judge Watson was right to hold that the Supreme Court’s “bona fide relationship” standard included U.S.
Hawaii District Court Grants in Part Motion to Modify Scope of Preliminary Injunction in Travel Ban Case
The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii has granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to enforce, or, in the alternative, modify the scope of the preliminary injunction in the travel ban case. The motion came before the court in response to the Trump administration's narrow interpretation of the Supreme Court's per curiam order allowing implementation of the ban.
The order is available in full below.