[U] Live Hearing In Hawaii, Today -- On Preliminary Injunction Against "Muslim Ban 2.0" -- At 3:30 PM EDT

UPDATED: 03.29.17 @ 10:45 PM EDT: Preliminary injunction ENTERED -- new post in a minute. The able Judge Watson has indicated, from the bench, that he will rule by end of day, Hawaii time. I am nearly certain he will enter a preliminary injunction now -- sort of a "longer acting version" of the TRO, from two weeks ago. Consider the live-blogging from US News & World Report:

. . .Judge Watson noted that the government said 20 refugees were resettled in Hawaii since 2010.

"Is this a mathematical exercise that 20 isn't enough? ... What do I make of that?" the judge asked [Trump Administration lawyer] Readler.

The government attorney replied that 20 is simply a small number of refugees.

"In whose judgment?" Watson asked.

Constitutional harm exists regardless of the number of people affected or for how long, Hawaii's attorney general said.

In his arguments, [Plaintiff State of Hawaii AG Office's attorney] Chin quoted Trump's comments that the revised travel ban is a "watered down" version of the original.

"We cannot fault the president for being politically incorrect, but we do fault him for being constitutionally incorrect," Chin said. . . .

Ouch. I'd now expect a nationwide injunction, as of tonight, out of Honolulu. [End, Update.]

In the unlikely event that it begins to look like the able Judge Watson will rule from the bench, at today's hearing, I will live-blog it.

Otherwise -- I'll fall silent, and rely on MSM accounts. I do not expect any meaningful change in the nation-wide TRO status tonight, local time (just to be clear).

In any event, here is what's up (lots of MSM outlets have live-bloggers in the courtroom, already this morning -- specifically granted court access, by orders entered):

. . . .The Court is in receipt of the parties' Joint Motion For Entry Of Proposed Briefing Schedule Order For Plaintiffs' Forthcoming Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. No. 235.

The Court enters the following briefing schedule: Plaintiffs shall file their Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction ("Motion") by 9:30 A.M. H.S.T. on Tuesday, March 21, 2017. The Government shall file its Opposition by 9:30 A.M. H.S.T. on Friday, March 24, 2017. Plaintiffs shall file their Reply by 9:30 A.M. H.S.T. on Saturday, March 25, 2017.

The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs' forthcoming Motion at 9:30 A.M. H.S.T. on Wednesday, March 29, 2017.

Counsel may participate by phone by notifying Judge Watson's Courtroom Manager by Tuesday, March 28, 2017 and providing the phone number where counsel may be reached at the time of the hearing. The Court will contact the parties via phone at the time of the hearing. The Court advises that the hearing date/time may be changed, or vacated, upon review of the briefs. Per the parties' stipulation, the Court's Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") of March 15, 2017 (Dkt. No. 219) shall remain in place until such time as the Court rules on whether the TRO should be converted to a preliminary injunction or until otherwise ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

(/s/ JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON). . . .

Now you know. Onward -- but I see a preliminary injunction, ahead. My bet is that Judge Watson won't rule for a week or two, this time, though -- as the earlier entered nationwide TRO has obviated any need to rush it. Smiling, ear to ear. . . .

नमस्ते

Friday Night "Federal" Fights: Judge Trenga (USDC ED VA) Has Entered An Opinion -- On Muslim Ban 2.0...

We now, as of Friday night, have several trial level federal court opinions that are in direct conflict with one another. Earlier last month in Boston, and now, tonight in Alexandria, Virginia (as a 32 page PDF file), there are two opinions finding a TRO or preliminary injunction is not warranted, or appropriate, on this second executive order.

On the other hand (as we've amply reported here), in Seattle alone, there are two -- a trial level, and an appellate level opinion, coming out the other way. Moreover, in Brooklyn, Baltimore and Honolulu -- there are three more rulings in favor of TROs. [I believe there is at least one each in Central, and Northern California, and one Wisconsin -- all against the ban, as well.]

I tally it as at least 7-2, in favor of striking the Muslim Ban.  But there is plainly a yawning chasm/split of authority, among the federal District Courts, here.

That fact alone may allow that the Supremes will take it up directly (without intervening appeals), should either side make such a motion. When we overlay this clear split, onto the notion that this is an extremely important and ground-breaking question -- one with profound implications for Constitutional separation of powers, and executive branch authority -- I will bet that within a month, or two at the outside, some form of one of these Muslim Ban 2.0 TROs will be placed on the Supremes' docket.

Until then, we will have to wait. As of tonight, Friday, March 24, 2017 -- Mr. Trump has filed no definitive, substantive appeal -- on any of the TROs, nationwide. Perhaps he is in no hurry, thinking his SCOTUS nominee will be seated by the time it reaches briefing.

[Personally, I already see five solid SCOTUS votes -- to strike Muslim Ban 2.0, with or without 45's nominee. And I think 45's people well know it. That's why he is doing a slow cha cha here.

I predict, more specifically -- that Justice Kennedy will join the expected four (Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor), and strike his ban. If that is so -- Gorsuch will not matter, at all (and it is not beyond belief that Chief Roberts and Newbie Gorsuch might join the other five). Not probable; but possible. We shall see. Goodnight, to all of good will. Today was a great day -- for people with a modicum of compassion, in their hearts.]

नमस्ते