U.S. Ninth Circuit - The FindLaw 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

Two weeks ago, a district court in Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order, barring the implementation of President Trump's most recent travel ban while the state contested its constitutionality. Now that bar is much less temporary. Yesterday, Judge Derrick Watson agreed to convert that TRO into a preliminary injunction, one that will continue to block the rollout of Trump's ban for the foreseeable future.

That means it's aloha to the TRO and aloha to a longer-lasting PI.

A three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit upheld an order blocking President Trump's first travel ban last month. The administration subsequently reissued a new executive order replacing the first and voluntarily dismissed its appeal to the earlier injunction. That should be the end of that debate, right?

Not exactly. One Ninth Circuit judge wanted the court to rehear the case en banc and vacate the panel opinion, despite the dismissal. Last week, the Ninth declined. But in doing so, the judges revealed a sharp split in the circuit.

President Trump's most recent travel ban was halted yesterday evening by a federal judge in Hawaii, just hours before it was scheduled to go into effect. The executive order would have temporarily halted travel and immigration from six majority-Muslim nations, while stopping refugee resettlement generally.

In a harshly worded ruling, Judge Derrick K. Watson halted enforcement of the ban nationwide, saying that any "reasonable, objective observer" would recognize the order as disfavoring Islam, "in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose".

President Trump's travel ban was halted a month ago by a federal judge in Seattle. Last Monday, the President issued a new, revised ban, a slightly adjusted version of the original executive order, now better tailored to withstand legal challenges.

The new ban is scheduled to go into effect this Thursday -- but not if several states have their way. Washington, Hawaii, and others are rushing to halt the new order before it can be implemented.

Hawaii will file the first legal challenge to President Trump's revised travel ban today, according to the state. Hawaii alleges that the new executive order violates due process and establishes an unconstitutional religious preference, claims similar to those that halted Trump's first ban.

The filing comes the same day that Trump's administration withdrew its appeal of a federal court order halting enforcement of the original ban.

President Trump issued a revised version of his controversial immigration executive order this morning. The new EO is largely similar to the previous version, with some important changes meant to insulate it from legal challenges. Permanent residents and visa holders are no longer covered by the ban, for example, while a preference for Christians and other religious minorities has been dropped.

But what will the new order mean for the litigation currently playing out in federal courts, including Washington State's ongoing challenge to the previous order?

The Ninth Circuit declined to reinstate President Trump's immigration ban yesterday, finding that the government had shown neither "a likelihood of success on the merits," nor any evidence that a failure to resume the program "would cause irreparable injury."

The decision is bound to be picked over by lawyers, politicians, and possibly the Supreme Court. But along with the court's words, there is plenty of insight to be gained from the court's citations, which give us a sort of peek, one-level down, at how the court viewed the immigration dispute and its role in it.

The Ninth Circuit won't be lifting an order enjoining enforcement of President Trump's executive order barring travel from seven majority-Muslim nations and the resettlement of refugees.

In a per curiam decision, the three-judge panel ruled just moments ago that the administration "has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that the failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury." Last Friday, Washington State won a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the ban after it sued, alleging that the executive order violated the Constitution and federal immigration law. The ruling means that Trump's immigration ban will remain on hold for now, while the case continues to play out.

Yesterday's oral arguments in Washington v. Trump might have been the most popular arguments ever held in the Ninth Circuit. More than 40,000 people 137,000 people have listened along to the arguments, which were streamed live on the Ninth's YouTube page.

What did they hear? A passionate, occasionally messy, debate about the president's executive order barring refugees and immigrants from seven majority-Muslim nations and judges that seemed, at times, skeptical of the government's position. Here are the highlights.

The Department of Justice yesterday urged the Ninth Circuit to reinstate President Trump's executive order banning refugee resettlement in the United States and halting immigration from seven majority-Muslim nations. The move comes just days after a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order, stopping enforcement of the EO nationwide.

That TRO, the Justice Department argued in its reply filed yesterday afternoon, is unjustified and "vastly overbroad." Here is a quick look at their arguments.