Thread: Travel Freeze Appeal on Fast Track to Supreme Court?

Travel Freeze Appeal on Fast Track to Supreme Court?

By: Robert Law 4/18/17

Litigation over President Trump’s executive order calling for a temporary travel freeze from countries that are hotbeds for terrorism appears to be on the fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last month, two activist federal judges—both Obama appointees—imposed nationwide temporary restraining orders (TROs) that blocked the key provisions of the revised “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” executive order from going into effect. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Mar. 21, 2017) In Hawaii, Judge Derrick Watson blocked Section 2 (90-day freeze of entry by individuals from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan) and Section 6 (120-day freeze on all refugee resettlement and lowering the cap from 110,000 to 50,000 for the fiscal year). (Id.) In Maryland, Judge Theodore Chuang blocked just Section 2. (Id.) The Trump administration appealed these legally flawed rulings to the Ninth and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively.
In a procedural move that should allow the case to go before the Supreme Court more quickly, the Fourth Circuit agreed to hear the appeal en banc, meaning by the entire court. (The Hill, Apr. 10, 2017) Typically, a three-judge panel randomly selected from the entire Court of Appeals hears challenges to district court rulings. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Feb. 14, 2017) The decision of the entire Fourth Circuit to hear the appeal likely stems from the need to resolve contrasting rulings by judges within the circuit. In a separate case brought in the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Anthony Trenga properly applied the law and upheld the temporary travel freeze. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Mar. 28, 2017) The Fourth Circuit will hear oral arguments on May 8. (The Hill, Apr. 10, 2017)
The litigation in the Ninth Circuit might follow a similar track. Initially, the appellate court agreed to hear an expedited appeal of Judge Watson’s ruling but by the standard three-judge panel. (See Politico, Apr. 10, 2017) Noting that the Fourth Circuit is hearing its appeal en banc, the State of Hawaii—the plaintiff in Judge Watson’s case—asked the full Ninth Circuit to hear the appeal of its case instead of just the panel. (Law360, Apr. 12, 2017) In its petition for an en banc hearing, Hawaii argued, “The lawfulness of President Trump’s executive action and the nationwide injunction imposed on by the court below are unquestionably issues of pressing, nationwide concern.” (Hawaii's Petition for En Banc Hearing) “Those issues merit the attention of the full court.” (Id.)
Even if both Courts of Appeal rule against the Trump administration—a possibility with both courts made up of majority Democratic appointee judges—the Supreme Court is all but certain to take the case given the national security significance. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s recent confirmation to fill the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last year means the high court has nine justices again. This is important because the outcome will now produce a majority ruling (at least 5-4) for either side that establishes binding precedent.

http://www.fairus.org/legislative-up...te-4-18-2017#1

Send all the new refugees and immigrants to Hawaii and California apparently they don't have a problem with it.