The supreme court has not evaluated the merits of the case… The order yesterday is only in effect until the 9th issues an opinion and another possible appeal to the supreme court…
From the order:
The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction and September 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.
They would have had information from the lower court on issues surrounding the case that they would have reviewed. They disagreed with the lower court that injury and likleyhood of success was present.
So the injunction will be dropped while arguments are made to the lower court.
The request to drop the injunction has no injured party among them that filed the lawsuit:
No respondent is actually subject to the rule.
There is the first part of what I said.
there is more than a fair prospect that the Court
will vacate the injunction. As an initial matter, the
injunction was entered at the behest of organizations that do
not even have a judicially cognizable interest in its
application to individual aliens. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit
denied a full stay solely on the ground that the Departments
likely should not have issued the rule as an interim final rule,
without advance notice and comment. The Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), however, allows an agency to issue a rule
without notice-and-comment procedures if the rule involves a
“foreign affairs function of the United States.”
And there is the second part of my equasion. Unlikely to succed.
It meets the two part test. No injured party and unlikely to succed. So the high court removed the injunction that says the rule can’t be enforced until the appeals court makes a rulling.
If the appleals court rules the same way, it most likely will issue an injunction again, and that will go to the supreme court again to be lifted until arguments can be made before the high court.
I guess if you want to argue that they “evaluated” the merits by acknowledging that, at the time of the order, there were no injured parties then okay…
It’s the legal ease submitted to the supreme court for them to evaluate in the decision as to if the injuction should stay in place or be lifted.
Your link also lists a third reason, the injunction WILL cause injury to the government.
When the high court read the rest of the legal mumbo jumbo after the first three parts (that I didn’t go down and read), they explain the the court why on each of the three grounds it should be lifted.
Again, the high court agreed that those who actually filed the suit are not being harmed by the rule. And the second main part . . . the cased the throw out the rule is unlikely to succedd.
Then they throw in the third part that if the injunction is allwed to stand, they will be injured.
That was the government’s filing… You and I have no idea what in that filing caused them to stay the injunction which is the point I am trying to make… This is the ENTIRE order from the SC (excluding the dissents):
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction and September 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.
Okay, it says that the stay presented to the court is granted pending disposition of the government’s appeal to the 9th circuit. That’s it… What do you think it says, in your own words?
If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically.
If the next level of appearls turns the government down. The injuction goes back into effect immediatly.
If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.
If the next level of appeals agrees to review the case, the injuction is stayed pending the next level of courts hearing arguments and issuing a rulling.
So this could be a short injunction reliefe or a failry long one.
And again, the high court went off the standard 2 part test. Is there injury to the party and is there likely hood of their success.
Odd are, the next level of appeals will accept the case, and the stay of the injuction will remain in effect.
From my years of reading Utah court of appeals and Utah supreme court opinions.
The court in Utah use those two basic tests to see if an injuction (enforcement of the law pending trial) should remain in effect.
They check to see if the party that brought the origininal case will suffer injury if the injuction is lifted, and they examin the likelyhood of success by the party. If it fails those, the injuction is usually lifted until the end of the trial.
It’s not like they just flip a coin to see if the injunction should be lifted or left in place.
The only thing we have to read in this stay order is the couple paragraphs I posted from the order… You have no idea what persuaded 5, 6 or 7 judges to vote to issue the stay. We only know of two dissents…
But like I keep saying it’s not made by flipping a coin. They typically have a reason for what they do. I’ve given you the reason I’m familiar with here in Utah.
There is a history of when injunctions are granted pending hearings and when they are not. That is what was being discussed. To say that there is no idea is not accurate. To say that what, if any, discussions might have been held are not known…is accurate.
If an injunction is granted before a hearing, you commonly see it stated that one side is likely to win…otherwise, no injunction.
There is a history to this. It is not a wild guess.
Of course there is… at the trial and circuit court level… This order merely stays the injunction until the 9th circuit issues a ruling… My point is, to declare this “over” when a trial record hasn’t even been developed is premature…
It is not over. The implication of the appellate injunction is that they likely thought it was going to be decided one way. The implication of the SC stay is that they do not agree. But no, that does not mean they think it will necessarily be decided the other way, either.
