Posted on 07/18/2017 11:42:42 AM PDT by Cboldt
Lawyers for the state of Hawaii and other challengers to President Trump's executive order argued to the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the current phase of that dispute should play out first in a lower appeals court. The variety of Supreme Court actions that the Trump Administration has sought are either outside of normal procedures or are unnecessary, the new filing contended.
Administration lawyers moved late last week to get the Supreme Court itself to clarify what it meant on June 26 in narrowing the government's power to impose a sweeping exclusion of foreign nationals from Muslim-majority nations and of refugees from around the world. Only the Justices can spell out what they meant, the Trump team asserted.
Directly contesting those arguments, the challengers' lawyers said the Supreme Court has nothing in its rules that allows a request for clarification of a prior ruling, and noted that the Justices have repeatedly turned down such requests in the past. It is the job of lower courts to apply and interpret Supreme Court decisions first, if there is any ambiguity, the lawyers said.
The challengers also opposed the government's plea for the Justices to bypass the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the task of defining limits on enforcement of the Trump presidential order. The document noted that the government's top lawyers in the Supreme Court - the office of the U.S. Solicitor General - is on record as opposing such attempts. It is that same office in the Trump Administration that is pursuing such a request.
The several requests the government is making to the Justices, the new document argued, boils down to "the belief that any interpretation that meaningfully diminishes the practical consequences of its [immigration] bans must be wrong."
If the government wants to get more power to exclude foreign nationals and refugees, it should first try to persuade the Ninth Circuit Court - where it already has a backup appeal pending, and where it also has pending a request to postpone any narrowing of its power to exclude travelers from the Mideast and refugees.
The Hawaiian legal team also mounted a full defense of the ruling last week by a federal trial judge in Honolulu, requiring the Administration to allow into the U.S. foreign grandparents and other relatives of individuals living in the U.S., and not just parents and children. The judge also required the Administration to let in any refugees that already have a formal assurance by a refugee assistance group that they will be resettled after they arrive.
The Trump Administration is arguing in its new plea to the Justices that both of those requirements go beyond what the Supreme Court has in mind in its ruling on June 26.
Now that the challengers have filed their opposition to what the government is seeking from the Justices, the government will have the opportunity to file a reply brief, and then the Justices presumably will be ready to act.
The first issue the Justices are likely to confront is whether they should put a temporary hold on what the Honolulu judge had ordered, while they ponder what to do with the other requests by the Administration.
So a lower court should decide a nationwide issue what BS.
Trump should go Andrew Jackson on them.
trump should defy the Hawaii ruling, and use its own criterion, until the supreme court clarifies.
trump should defy the Hawaii ruling, and use its own criterion, until the supreme court clarifies.
The idea that a low level federal judge is more powerful than a president is not a check or balance, it is a flaw in the system. And it is one the libs will continue to exploit until they are forced not to.
oops “its” should be “his”
Why should we continue to pay for an expensive congress, president and Supreme Court?
Just let the Hawaiian politicians run the country.
/s
I think the system is fine in principle. Any system can be perverted. What we are under now is a system of coercion run by fundamentally dishonest and ruthless people. This group finds all manner of "weakness" to exploit.
Those who object to and subvert the principles this country was founded on are a majority in the federal system, all three branches. Of course all claim to be faithful to the constitution and their oath to uphold it, and if you object, you are the revolutionary.
No government in history has survived. They all fail. This one will too. It's inevitable given human nature. The seeds for failure are numerous, and 100% effective. Universal suffrage; controlled messaging to the public; brute force to quash dissent.
Hawaii is attempting to drag this into the weeds. Arguing what relationships are encompassed by “close relative” is a distraction and, ultimately, irrelevant. Congress’ authority under the Constitution is clear and exclusive. The law authorizing the President’s EO is equally clear.
Why yes, that's true. Absent some countering piece of legislation that prevents that, the administration is completely justified.
They are tying this up as much as they can and they won't let go. The intent is not to make a point of law but to undermine the Executive at this point. If they can, it destroys the enabling legislation that the EO refers to - 8 USC 1182(f) - and renders it meaningless.
That is the goal of the Left. They want unrestricted entry of anyone to the U.S., because they know they can destroy the country that way.
Trump should get T-Rex to issue criteria for visa approvals. Make the requirements tough and firm and order officials to not approve visas unless they are met. For example, do not approve visas without reliable birth and background check records. This would rule out visas entirely for many countries. And it would be legally unassailable. Personally, I don’t think an executive order was ever necessary.
This is why Jeff Sessions must go. Filing an appeal?!?! The proper position is that the lower courts ALREADY ruled, the Supreme Court STAYED those rulings pending its final determination and, until such time, the Trump administration will obey the highest court’s ruling, PERIOD. That is what Obama did REPEATEDLY in ignoring, for example, conflicting orders from different Circuit Courts of Appeal.
The lower courts are seeking to use an ambiguity of the Supreme Court’s ruling to, in effect, nullify the Supreme Court’s ruling. Absolutely scandalous.
Absolutely correct. The SC has ruled on this yet the weasel in Hawaii is getting away with prying open a loophole and Trump/Sessions is letting him. To make matters worse yesterday the State department gave the punk what he asserted by expanding the exceptions. It’s just so frustrating to watch this.
The People’s Republic of Hawaii...
UPDATED Tuesday night: Within hours after the challengers' response was filed, the Trump Administration submitted a 16-page reply brief. That means that all of the filings have been made, so the Supreme Court can act at any time. The arguments made by the government in its reply are discussed at the bottom of this post. ...The following new material was added to this post Tuesday night:
The Trump Administration lawyers, in replying to the opposition brief of the challengers, argued that the disagreements between the two sides are so deep that it adds to the urgency of having the Supreme Court clarify its June 26 decision without any further delay, and definitely without sending the dispute to the Ninth Circuit Court. The dispute inevitably would return to the Justices at some point, the federal reply brief said, so it would only add to confusion and delay to postpone review by the Justices.
Continuing to insist that only the Supreme Court can resolve the disagreements over what the Administration can now do under the Trump executive order, the government lawyers said there is nothing that the Ninth Circuit Court could do to help resolve the controversy at this stage.
In any event, the reply brief argued that the Justices should put the whole issue on hold until after either the Justices or the Ninth Circuit Court have made a decision about current enforcement options. Although government officials are now obeying the trial judge's order limiting those options, and thus permitting more foreign nationals and refugees to enter the U.S., the reply brief argued that it would be easier to make a quick return to the policy it was following after the Supreme Court had ruled than it would be after time had passed for the Ninth Circuit Court and then the Supreme Court to act.
Marty takes issue with the government's use of "substantial connection," and points out SCOTUS use of "no connection" and equivalents on one hand, and "bona fide" on the other. As Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissenting opinion, SCOTUS left the contours of "bona fide" undefined, and, he argued, that would lead to litigation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.