Source: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-the-9th-circuits-opinion-on-the-travel-ban/2327/?wpisrc=nl_daily202&amp;wpmm=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:09:43+00:00

Document:
Attorney General; Douglas N. Letter, Sharon Swingle, H.
of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellants.
Colleen M. Melody, Civil Rights Unit Chief; Anne E.
Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Washington.
of the Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; for PlaintiffAppellee State of Minnesota.
Entry Into the United Statesa (the aExecutive Ordera).
harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.a Id.
country of nationality facing religious persecution.a 82 Fed.
suspended. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977-80.
and the United States (collectively, athe Governmenta).
Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement nationwide.
the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful. Id.
emergency appeal. Id. at *3.
argument was conducted by telephone.
both the Government and the States.
appeal is premature. A TRO is not ordinarily appealable.
See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir.
Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). See, e.g., id.
ascertain our jurisdiction, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S.
Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016).
jurisdiction at the merits stage of this appeal. See Natal Indus., Inc. v.
Republic Natal Life Ins. Co., 677 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1982).
(quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).
likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury.a Id.
(citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
620 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn. 2001).
injunctions are asubstantially identical.a Stuhlbarg Intal Sales Co., Inc.
v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).
interns and will lose its investment if they are not admitted.
from traveling for academic and personal reasons.
who seek access to their market or function.a Craig v.
permitted to assert the constitutional rights of their members.
See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
behalf of their patrons.a); Pierce v. Socay of Sisters, 268 U.S.
bound upa in the universitiesa capacity to teach them.
Government does not argue otherwise.
on behalf of his female patients. See Singleton, 428 U.S. at 118.
430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v.
with respect to national security and foreign relations).
actions such as this one.
566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S.
at stake.a American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v.
Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).
at the time of the adoption of the Constitutiona); Chae Chan Ping v.
or less, the conduct of all civilized nations.a).
particular facts presented in an individual visa application.
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41.
the courts. See Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 3334.
defense of the Nation worthwhile.a); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S.
totally unrestricted freedom of choice.a).
even in times of conflict. See, e.g., Boumediene, 553 U.S.
attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001); Aptheker v.
court jurisdiction over habeas petitions by such individuals).
As a plurality of the Supreme Court cautioned in Hamdi v.
constitutional challenges to executive action.
556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v.
as to any of the Statesa other claims.
liberty, or property, without due process of law.a U.S.
deprivation and have them considered. United States v.
hearing prior to restricting an individualas ability to travel.
analysis as to any specific alleged violation.
prevail against the Statesa procedural due process claims.
States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S.
the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.a).
and that proposition seems unlikely.
United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S.
have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct.
the existence of such persons is obvious.
the scope of the TRO in either respect.
liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses).
proposed revision leaves out at least some who do.
while nevertheless applying only within the Statesa borders.
Executive Order. See United States v. Natal Treasury Emps.
statute to eliminate constitutional defects); cf. Aptheker v.
process argument in this appeal.
over another,a Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982).
of the political community.aa Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
religion. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 50 (9th Cir.
merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.
position it has occupied for many previous years.
and vindicate its interests in the full course of this litigation.
Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.
procedures to protect classified materials in civil cases); 28 C.F.R.
(providing procedures governing filings under seal).
(quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).
427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976))).
injuries listed above would be avoided.
do not justify a stay.
stay pending appeal is DENIED.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.