Thursday, September 7, 2017

USDC Judge Derrick Watson (HI) Affirmed: Trump Loses, Again -- 0-12 Now...

As the Martin Shkreli news was breaking, the three member panel of the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion affirming the courageous US District Court Judge Watson.

In sum, Trump's lawyers were told there is no rational basis for excluding grandparents -- and that (as we advised, in June) a letter from any recognized aid organization would be a sufficient reason (in the view of the SCOTUS) to admit a refugee, into the US. Here is just a bit -- but do go read all 36 pages:

. . . .For the reasons that follow, we conclude that in modifying the preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo, the district court carefully and correctly balanced the hardships and the equitable considerations as directed by the Supreme Court in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2088 (2017), and did not abuse its discretion. We affirm. . . .

As the district court correctly identified, a refugee is covered by the preliminary injunction, as modified by the Supreme Court’s stay order, if the refugee has a bona fide relationship with an entity in the United States, meaning a relationship that is formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course rather than to evade the Executive Order. See Trump, 137 S. Ct. at 2088–89. Applying this standard, the district court held that formally assured refugees have bona fide relationships with resettlement agencies and are covered by the injunction because the assurance is formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course rather than to evade the Executive Order. Mindful of the narrow standard that governs our review, we affirm, considering the individualized screening process necessary to obtain a formal assurance and the concrete harms faced by a resettlement agency because of that refugee’s exclusion. . . .

Zero for 12, Mr. Trump. Expect much the same -- if you actually do try to do anything (other than impotent, and now waffling bluster) related to the dreamers' status as Americans. Onward on a wonderful if gray Friday -- things are finally looking up. . . even as regions as far inland as middle Tennessee brace for the Irma onslaught next week. Be safe. [I'll tuck this one under the Shkreli news, even though it was written at 8 am Friday. Peace.]



condor said...

In what will likely be a trivial to- and fro-, on an emergency motion from 45's lawyers -- Justice Kennedy temporarily stayed the plaintiffs' complete win in the Ninth Circuit, but only insofar as it parses what recognized aid agencies must do to show a bona fide relationship exists with a given refugee -- all under the Supremes' original grant of cert. [In other words, and unsurprisingly -- grandparents remain close family.]

So by mid-day tomorrow, the State of Hawaii will have answered, and in all likelihood, the Supremes will simply stick to the set schedule for argument on the SECOND Tuesday in October, 2017.

In truth, this latest flurry doesn't change what will be argued and then decided at the Supremes -- come October.

So once again -- we are in a hurry up and wait mode, here.

Now you know.

condor said...

And, Hawaii has answered Trump this day, and answered quite well.

That's a 32 page brief, of a PDF file (couertesy Amy Howe at -- I'm doing this all by iPhone, so we will rely on her link). And... here's a bit:

. . .[T]he Government is back. It now demands that, in addition to
setting forth the legal standard and directing the Ninth Circuit to apply it, this
Court must engage in its own fact-bound review of the refugee-resettlement process
in order to determine for itself whether the lower courts correctly applied the
established standard to the record. Moreover, it asks the Court to engage in this
complex factual inquiry mere weeks before hearing this case on the merits—
insisting that the Court devote its immediate attention to ensuring that every
possible refugee is excluded.

That is not this Court’s role. The lower courts, not this Court, are “best
qualified to deal with the flinty, intractable realities of day-to-day implementation
of” the Court’s “constitutional commands.” United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149,
184 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court laid out a legal standard.
The District Court and the Ninth Circuit diligently and correctly applied it. And
contrary to the Government’s hyperbole, they have not rendered the stay
“functionally inoperative”: The Government retains the authority to bar tens of
thousands of refugees from entering the country, as indeed it has done for months.
The lower courts have simply applied this Court’s standard to protect vulnerable
refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome
them to our shores.

The Government’s motion should be denied. . . .

And I predict it will be by the Supremes. 6-3 or 7-2.