Source: https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/hawaii-seeks-injunction-against-trump-admin-interpretation-of-scotus-travel-order-ruling/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:55:34+00:00

Document:
Just as predicted, more litigation, this time an “Emergency Motion to Clarify” the District Court’s prior injunction.
We accordingly grant the Government’s stay applications in part and narrow the scope of the injunctions as to §2(c). The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §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. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2….
person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to all other individuals, the provisions may take effect.
Section 2(c) applies to the general bar to entry into the country via visas, while Section 6(a) is the temporary halt in refugee entry. For §2(c), the Travel Order continued except as to “parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii.” “John Doe” was “a lawful permanent resident whose Iranian wife is seeking entry tothe United States.” Dr. Elshikh is “an American citizen and imam whose Syrian mother-in-law is seeking entry to this country.” Hawaii’s alleged interest was in students attending university in Hawaii. So, according to the Supreme Court, §2(c) continues as to persons whose spouse or mother-in-law are seeking admission, or for students enrolled in university in Hawaii. For refugees under §6(a) the Supreme Court used looser language, “a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” though there is no limiting language as for §2(c).
Three justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) wanted to go further, and uphold the Travel Order in its entirety.
Parents, spouses, children, siblings, fiancés and sons- or daughters-in-law are approved relationships.
Hawaii filed a court challenge today to the Trump administration’s limitations on the family relationships that people from six mostly Muslim countries need to claim to avoid a travel ban.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday exempted people from the ban if they can prove a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity. The Trump administration had said the exemption would apply to citizens of Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen with a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S. The administration late today apparently also added fiance to the list of “bona fide” relationships.
Hawaii filed an emergency motion today asking a federal judge to clarify that the administration cannot enforce the ban against fiances or relatives not defined by the administration guidelines.
The Emergency Motion (pdf.), supporting Declaration (pdf.), and Memorandum of Law (pdf.) are embedded in full at the bottom of this post.
Hawaii seeks injunction against Trump admin interpretation of SCOTUS Travel Order ruling https://t.co/OTyq6vYfi4 Trump should ban Hawaiians.
You know… I really think we should stop being angry about this and just laugh.
Even with their federal judges willing to put the personal over principles and an army of unifireable bureaucrats… they are reduced to pitched battles over whether or not grandparents count.
I’ve love to see all those judges’ paychecks bounce!
The Attorney General of Hawaii is grandstanding.
This odd attempt at clarification is a bald faced attempt to ask a District Court to usurp the power of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The District Court should not take any further action in this case until the Supreme Court has ruled. If the Supreme Court wants to clarify it can clarify.
Individuals with claims may raise them in a separate legal proceeding. It is not for the State of Hawaii to seek clarification.
What will happen in the courts if Hawaii finds a federal judge, such as Obama’s friend, who decides to issue another injunction based on this motion? Can the administration ignore the further injunction or must the ban be halted yet again?
There is precedent given the grant of certiorari, (dating back to President Nixon during Watergate) for the Government to assert that a nationwide District Court injunction is non-binding until the Supreme Court rules on its merits. Such an assertion is more a political, rather than legal assertion. But at the same time, the District Court rulings are more political rather than legal rulings.
It is presumptuous for a United States District Court to try to review (on a national basis) what is for all practical purposes a preliminary injunction issued by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Courts words speak for itself.
The Supreme Court did not remand the cases back to the District Courts. The implication is clear from the ruling.Although not explicitly stated the Supreme Court believes the District Courts will stand down until the Supreme Court completes its review.
To begin, we grant both of the Government’s petitions for certiorari and consolidate the cases for argument.
The Government’s application to stay the injunctionwith respect to §§6(a) and (b) is accordingly granted in part. Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claima bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may not be excluded pursuant to §6(b), even if the 50,000 person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to all other individuals, the provisions may take effect.
So if they are challenging the definition of close relationships, does that mean that until that case is resolved no one from the listed restricted countries can get in? The rest of the previous ruling on the EO stands…? Your thoughts Professor?
Since gay marriage is now legal, every terrorist will be a fiancé.
— Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
— The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
Lots sooner than anyone expects.
Trump’s next response should be to halt ALL immigration. This is a disaster that needs to be brought under control. Period. We need to fix the leaky roof BEFORE we remodel the kitchen.
I agree, if they want to play these dumb games, take away all their toys. Shut down the borders.
We should halt all immigration!
No reference to race, religion or any other fact that could be used to interfere with safely executing the lawful duties of the President to protect the citizens!
Technically, as this case is before the SCOTUS and the State of Hawaii is requesting a judicial clarification of language written by the SCOTUS, the district court no longer has any jurisdiction in the matter. The DC should refer Hawaii to the SCOTUS for clarification. It will be interesting to see if the DC goes rogue here and issues a “clarification” on its own.
The SCOTUS already admonished the lower court and said Hawaii could not stand in for a theoretical plaintiff. That should have ended the matter.
Any guesses which way the “Resistance” Hawaii Court and the “Resistance” 9th Circus Court will rule?
Whack! Right across the face.
All Muslims should be routed to Hawaii.
Large online advertisement and in Hawaii newspapers: Hawaii to accept all new refugees from seven countries involved in current ban. Name the politicians and judicial officials involved.
I wonder if China would be interested in acquiring Hawaii? It’s already a crap hole with brush.
What’s with the orange picture, Professor?

References: §2
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §6
 §2
 §6
 §6