Intentional shielding cases from Supreme Court review (9th Circuit Court decision, issued today)

9th Circuit Court ^ | 04/10/2025 | 9th Circuit Court

[aimhigh]

Immigration

Summary: In an appeal in which the government challenged the district court’s judgment vacating a rule called Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (“the Rule”), the panel vacated its prior order staying the case pending settlement discussions (which were ultimately not successful); vacated the district court’s July 25, 2023, judgment; and remanded for the district court to address: (1) the impact of Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), on the issue of organizational standing; and (2) the impact of Executive Order 14165 § 7(a)–(b), which terminated the “lawful pathways” on which the Rule relies in part.

Concurring in the judgment, Judge VanDyke reluctantly agreed with the decision to remand, but wrote separately to point out how the latest chapter in this sad, protracted saga powerfully illustrates an unhealthy condition afflicting the very foundations of our national government.

Judge VanDyke wrote that the problem is the ease with which one just one (district) or two (circuit) judges can effectively dictate nationwide policy on monumental issues for very long periods of time with no plenary Supreme Court review of the merits—indeed, sometimes longer than any single president could ever serve. That is starkly demonstrated by this case, where after the better part of a decade of what appears to be an extended game of Supreme Court keepaway this case is now being sent back to the district court for essentially a full restart. But all the controversial and flawed circuit precedent it created and reinforced remains, binding the hands of the executive branch, district courts, and future panels of this court on critical immigration policies.

[aimhigh]

This decision in an interesting read, about how courts impact national policy for years, and keep the issues awy from the Supreme Court.

[Gay State Conservative]

later

[absalom01]

He's not wrong about this:

"What can be done about this? I’m not sure. But what I do know is that it isn’t healthy and, if it continues, people will lose faith in the judiciary. So while I reluctantly concur in the decision to send this case back down for a restart, I also hope something will be done about the more fundamental flaws in the present functioning of our federal judicial system that this case embodies. If something isn’t done, I fear we are headed for a governmental crisis—and one where the least dangerous branch is likely to find itself on the losing end."

[FreedomNotSafety]

Thanks.

If Robert’s SC court keeps doging this issue a president will start ignoring the lower courts.

[TornadoAlley3]

Congress can end it. Simple solution

[dangus]

Congress can’t do a God-damned thing other than spend money without the willing support of Democrats.

[dangus]

I should reword that:
Without the willing support of Democrats, Congress can’t do a God-damned thing other than spend money .

[llevrok]

If Robert’s SC court keeps doging this issue a president will start ignoring the lower courts.

Yes. It will force the issue.

[ComputerGuy]

SCOTUS allows it to happen. It’s part of their plan.

[Dr. Franklin]

The courts of appeals know how to decide cases to avoid scrutiny at SCOTUS. SCOTUS doesn’t decide enough cases. SCOTUS likes to set policy, and cares little when that policy is defeated by lower court judges deliberately misapplying the law, and jerking litigants around. The Ninth Circuit has been a problem, and SCOTUS should keep them on a short leash, but they don’t.

[easychord]

Haven’t heard of judge VanDyke before reading this, but I think he should be first in line for the next SC opening!