Case Name: State of WASHINGTON; State of Minnesota, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-17
Citations: 858 F.3d 1168
Docket Number: No. 17-35105
Parties: State of WASHINGTON; State of Minnesota, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: WILLIAM C. CANBY, JR., RICHARD R. CLIFTON, and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 858
Pages: 1168–1188

Head Matter:
State of WASHINGTON; State of Minnesota, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 17-35105
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed March 17, 2017
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00141
Before: WILLIAM C. CANBY, JR., RICHARD R. CLIFTON, and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT;
Concurrence by Judge BERZON;
Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI;
Dissent by Judge BYBEE;
Dissent by Judge BEA

Opinion:
AMENDED ORDER
This court in a published order previously denied a motion of the government for a stay of a restraining order pending appeal. 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017). That order became moot when this court granted the government's unopposed motion to dismiss its underlying appeal. Order, Mar. 8, 2017. No party has moved to vacate the published order. A judge of this court called for a vote to determine whether the court should grant en banc reconsideration in order to vacate the published order denying the stay. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. Vacatur of the stay order is denied. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (holding that the "extraordinary remedy of vacatur" is ordinarily unjustified when post-decision mootness is caused by voluntary action of the losing party).
This order is being filed along with a concurrence from Judge Reinhardt, a concurrence from Judge Berzon, a dissent from Judge Kozinski, a dissent from Judge Bybee, and a dissent from Judge Bea. No further opinions will be filed.