Full Text Political Transcripts March 15, 2017: Hawaii’s Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Trump Travel Ban

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

Full Text Hawaii’s Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Trump Travel Ban

Source: United States District Court District of Hawaii, 3-15-17

Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 219 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 43

4356 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PageID #:

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII 12:32 pm, Mar 15, 2017

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH,

SUE BEITIA, CLERK CV.

NO. 17-00050 DKW-KSC

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER vs. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

….READ MORE

Full Text Political Transcripts February 9, 2017: 9th Circuit of Appeal Denies Reinstatement of President Donald Trump’s Travel Ban Washington v Trump Opinion

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

02/09/2017

Published Order Denying Stay PD

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF    No. 17-35105
MINNESOTA,    D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.    2:17-cv-00141

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the    ORDER
United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; REX W.
TILLERSON, Secretary of State; JOHN
F. KELLY, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellants.

Motion for Stay of an Order of the
United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2017

Filed February 9, 2017
Before: William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and
Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges
Per Curiam Order

COUNSEL
August E. Flentje (argued), Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General; Douglas N. Letter, Sharon Swingle, H. Thomas Byron, Lowell V. Sturgill Jr., and Catherine Dorsey, Attorneys, Appellate Staff; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Noel J. Francisco, Acting Solicitor General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellants.
Noah G. Purcell (argued), Solicitor General; Marsha Chien and Patricio A. Marquez, Assistant Attorneys General; Colleen M. Melody, Civil Rights Unit Chief; Anne E. Egeler, Deputy Solicitor General; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Attorney General’s Office, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Washington.
Jacob Campion, Assistant Attorney General; Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General; Lori Swanson, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Minnesota.

ORDER
PER CURIAM:
At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and
temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order. The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds.
To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.
Background
On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977. Citing the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and stating that “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes” since then, the Executive Order declares that “the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.” Id. It asserts, “Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.” Id.
The Executive Order makes several changes to the policies and procedures by which non-citizens may enter the United States. Three are at issue here. First, section 3(c) of the Executive Order suspends for 90 days the entry of aliens from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977- 78 (citing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 217(a)(12), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)). Second, section 5(a) of the Executive Order suspends for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. Upon resumption of the refugee program, section 5(b) of the Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to prioritize refugee claims based on religious persecution where a refugee’s religion is the minority religion in the country of his or her nationality. Id. Third, section 5(c) of the Executive Order suspends indefinitely the entry of all Syrian refugees. Id. Sections 3(g) and 5(e) of the Executive Order allow the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to make case-by-case exceptions to these provisions “when in the national interest.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8,978- 80. Section 5(e) states that situations that would be in the national interest include “when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. The Executive Order requires the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to evaluate the United States’ visa, admission, and refugee programs during the periods in which entry is suspended. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977-80.

The impact of the Executive Order was immediate and widespread. It was reported that thousands of visas were immediately canceled, hundreds of travelers with such visas were prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the United States or denied entry on arrival, and some travelers were detained. Three days later, on January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, naming as defendants the President, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the United States (collectively, “the Government”). Washington alleged that the Executive Order unconstitutionally and illegally stranded its residents abroad, split their families, restricted their travel, and damaged the State’s economy and public universities in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the INA, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington also alleged that the Executive Order was not truly meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a “Muslim ban” as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.
Washington asked the district court to declare that the challenged sections of the Executive Order are illegal and unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement nationwide. On the same day, Washington filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to enjoin the enforcement of sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order. Two days later, Washington’s Complaint was amended to add the State of Minnesota as a plaintiff and to add a claim under the Tenth Amendment. Washington and Minnesota (collectively, “the States”) jointly filed an amended motion for a TRO. The Government opposed the motion the next day, and the district court held a hearing the day after that.
That evening, the court entered a written order granting the TRO. Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) . The district court preliminarily concluded that significant and ongoing harm was being inflicted on substantial numbers of people, to the detriment of the States, by means of an Executive Order that the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful. Id. at *2. The district court enjoined and restrained the nationwide enforcement of sections 3(c) and 5(a) -(c) in their entirety. Id. It enjoined section 5(e) to the extent that section “purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities,” and prohibited the government from “proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.” The court also directed the parties to propose a briefing schedule for the States’ request for a preliminary injunction and denied the Government’s motion to stay the TRO pending an emergency appeal. Id. at *3.
The Government filed a notice of appeal the next day and sought an emergency stay in this court, including an immediate stay while its emergency stay motion was under consideration. We denied the request for an immediate stay and set deadlines for the filing of responsive and reply briefs on the emergency stay motion over the next two days.1 Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 469608 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2017). The motion was submitted after oral argument was conducted by telephone.
1 We have also received many amicus curiae briefs in support of both the Government and the States.

Appellate Jurisdiction
The States argue that we lack jurisdiction over the Government’s stay motion because the Government’s appeal is premature. A TRO is not ordinarily appealable.
See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 2002). We may nonetheless review an order styled as a TRO if it “possesses the qualities of a preliminary injunction.”
Serv. Emps. Int’l Union v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare Workers, 598 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010). This rule has ordinarily required the would-be appellant to show that the TRO was strongly challenged in adversarial proceedings before the district court and that it has or will remain in force for longer than the fourteen-day period identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). See, e.g., id.
We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The district court’s order has no expiration date, and no hearing has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently scheduled briefing on the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction, it is apparent from the district court’s scheduling order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which the Government has argued that emergency relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism, we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction.
Standing
The Government argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the States have no standing to sue. We have an independent obligation to ascertain our jurisdiction, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and we consider the Government’s argument de novo, see, e.g., Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the States have made a sufficient showing to support standing, at least at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.
Article III, section 2 of the Constitution allows federal courts to consider only “Cases” and “Controversies.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007). “Those two words confine ‘the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’” Id. (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). ”Standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement” and is therefore a prerequisite to our jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The “gist of the question of standing” is whether the plaintiff has a sufficiently “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” to ensure that the parties will be truly adverse and their legal presentations sharpened. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury.” Id. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
Because standing is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case,” it “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. At this very preliminary stage of the litigation, the States may rely on the allegations in their Complaint and whatever other evidence they submitted in support of their TRO motion to meet their burden. See id. With these allegations and evidence, the States must make a “clear showing of each element of standing.” Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013).3
The States argue that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities, which the parties do not dispute are branches of the States under state law. See, e.g., Hontz v. State, 714 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Wash. 1986) (en banc); Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor, 620 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn. 2001).
Specifically, the States allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order’s effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries. These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit. Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.
According to declarations filed by the States, for example, two visiting scholars who had planned to spend time at Washington State University were not permitted to enter the United States; one was informed he would be unable to obtain a visa. Similarly, the University of Washington was in the process of sponsoring three prospective employees from countries covered by the Executive Order for visas; it had made plans for their arrival beginning in February 2017, but they have been unable to enter the United States. The University of Washington also sponsored two medicine and science interns who have been prevented by the Executive Order from coming to the University of Washington. The University of Washington has already incurred the costs of visa applications for those interns and will lose its investment if they are not admitted. Both schools have a mission of “global engagement” and rely on such visiting students, scholars, and faculty to advance their educational goals. Students and faculty at Minnesota’s public universities were similarly restricted from traveling for academic and personal reasons.
Under the “third party standing” doctrine, these injuries to the state universities give the States standing to assert the rights of the students, scholars, and faculty affected by the Executive Order. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114-16 (1976) (explaining that third-party standing is allowed when the third party’s interests are “inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue”; when the litigant is “fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right” as the third party; or when the third party is less able to assert her own rights). Vendors, for example, “have been uniformly permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function.” Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 195 (1976). Likewise, doctors have been permitted to assert the rights of their patients. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). And advocacy organizations such as the NAACP have been permitted to assert the constitutional rights of their members.
Most relevant for our purposes, schools have been permitted to assert the rights of their students. See, e.g., Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 175 & n.13 (1976) (“It is clear that the schools have standing to assert these arguments [asserting free-association rights, privacy rights, and ‘a parent’s right to direct the education of his children’] on behalf of their patrons.”); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 536 (1925) (allowing a school to assert the “right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training [and] the right of the child to influence the parents’ choice of a school”); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Pierce and rejecting the argument that the plaintiff school had no standing to assert claims of discrimination against its minority students); see also Ohio Ass’n of Indep. Sch. v. Goff, 92 F.3d 419, 422 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing similar authorities). As in those cases, the interests of the States’ universities here are aligned with their students. The students’ educational success is “inextricably bound up” in the universities’ capacity to teach them. Singleton, 428 U.S. at 115. And the universities’ reputations depend on the success of their professors’ research. Thus, as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.
We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. And we have no difficulty concluding that the States’ injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The Government does not argue otherwise.
We therefore hold that the States have standing.
Reviewability of the Executive Order
The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches with respect to national security and foreign relations). Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.
Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context. See Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations”); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41 (rejecting the argument that Congress has “unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens,” and affirming that courts can review “whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing that power”).6 Our court has likewise made clear that “[a]lthough alienage classifications are closely connected to matters of foreign policy and national security,” courts “can and do review foreign policy arguments that are offered to justify legislative or executive action when constitutional rights are at stake.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), does not compel a different conclusion. The Government cites Mandel for the proposition that “‘when the Executive exercises’ immigration authority ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion.’” The Government omits portions of the quoted language to imply that this standard governs judicial review of all executive exercises of immigration authority. In fact, the Mandel standard applies to lawsuits challenging an executive branch official’s decision to issue or deny an individual visa based on the application of a congressionally enumerated standard to the particular facts presented by that visa application. The present case, by contrast, is not about the application of a specifically enumerated congressional policy to the particular facts presented in an individual visa application. Rather, the States are challenging the President’s promulgation of sweeping immigration policy. Such exercises of policymaking authority at the highest levels of the political branches are plainly not subject to the Mandel standard; as cases like Zadvydas and Chadha make clear, courts can and do review constitutional challenges to the substance and implementation of immigration policy. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41.
This is no less true when the challenged immigration action implicates national security concerns. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 19 (1942) (stating that courts have a duty, “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty”); Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866) (“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace . . . under all circumstances.”). We are mindful that deference to the political branches is particularly appropriate with respect to national security and foreign affairs, given the relative institutional capacity, informational access, and expertise of the courts. See Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 33-34.
Nonetheless, “courts are not powerless to review the political branches’ actions” with respect to matters of national security. Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532, 559 n.17 (9th Cir. 2005). To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 34 (quoting id. at 61 (Breyer, J., dissenting)); see also United States v. Robel , 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967) (“‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965) (“[S]imply because a statute deals with foreign relations [does not mean that] it can grant the Executive totally unrestricted freedom of choice.”).
Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of—and even invalidate—actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict. See, e.g., Boumediene, 553 U.S. 723 (striking down a federal statute purporting to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by non-citizens being held as “enemy combatants” after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere and accused of authorizing, planning, committing, or aiding the terrorist attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001); Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) (holding unconstitutional a statute denying passports to American members of the Communist Party despite national security concerns); Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) (holding unconstitutional the detention of a law-abiding and loyal American of Japanese ancestry during World War II and affirming federal court jurisdiction over habeas petitions by such individuals). As a plurality of the Supreme Court cautioned in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), “Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.” Id. at 536 (plurality opinion).
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
Legal Standard
The Government moves to stay the district court’s order pending this appeal. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). “It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. (quoting Virginian, 272 U.S. at 672-73) (alterations omitted) . “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433-34.
Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock , 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). “The first two factors . . . are the most critical,” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, and the last two steps are reached “[o]nce an applicant satisfies the first two factors,” id. at 435. We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay. We emphasize, however, that our analysis is a preliminary one. We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest.
The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims.
Likelihood of Success—Due Process
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing “notice and an opportunity to respond,” or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered. United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir. 2014); accord Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985); ASSE Int’l, Inc. v. Kerry, 803 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015).
The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.
In the district court, the States argued that the Executive Order violates the procedural due process rights of various aliens in at least three independent ways. First, section 3(c) denies re-entry to certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders without constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond. Second, section 3(c) prohibits certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders from exercising their separate and independent constitutionally protected liberty interests in travelling abroad and thereafter re- entering the United States. Third, section 5 contravenes the procedures provided by federal statute for refugees seeking asylum and related relief in the United States. The district court held generally in the TRO that the States were likely to prevail on the merits of their due process claims, without discussing or offering analysis as to any specific alleged violation.
At this stage of the proceedings, it is the Government’s burden to make “a strong showing that [it] is likely to” prevail against the States’ procedural due process claims. Lair v. Bullock , 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). We are not persuaded that the Government has carried its burden for a stay pending appeal.
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (“[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”).
The Government has argued that, even if lawful permanent residents have due process rights, the States’ challenge to section 3(c) based on its application to lawful permanent residents is moot because several days after the Executive Order was issued, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II issued “[a]uthoritative [g]uidance” stating that sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.
Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings. On this record, therefore, we cannot conclude that the Government has shown that it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added).
Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33- 34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order. Indeed, the existence of such persons is obvious.
The Government argues that, even if the States have shown that they will likely succeed on some of their procedural due process claims, the district court nevertheless erred by issuing an “overbroad” TRO. Specifically, the Government argues that the TRO is overbroad in two independent respects: (1) the TRO extends beyond lawful permanent residents, and covers aliens who cannot assert cognizable liberty interests in connection with travelling into and out of the United States, and (2) the TRO applies nationwide, and enjoins application of the Executive Order outside Washington and Minnesota. We decline to modify the scope of the TRO in either respect.
First, we decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (six Justices declining to adopt a rule that would categorically bar U.S. citizens from asserting cognizable liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses). There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government’s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do.

Second, we decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) . At this stage of the litigation, we do not need to and do not reach such a legal conclusion for ourselves, but we cannot say that the Government has established that a contrary view is likely to prevail. Moreover, even if limiting the geographic scope of the injunction would be desirable, the Government has not proposed a workable alternative form of the TRO that accounts for the nation’s multiple ports of entry and interconnected transit system and that would protect the proprietary interests of the States at issue here while nevertheless applying only within the States’ borders.
More generally, even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects, it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order. See United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 479 (1995) (declining to rewrite a statute to eliminate constitutional defects); cf. Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 516 (1964) (invalidating a restriction on freedom of travel despite the existence of constitutional applications). The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions. For now, it is enough for us to conclude that the Government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal.
Likelihood of Success—Religious Discrimination
The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. A law that has a religious, not secular, purpose violates that clause, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971), as does one that “officially prefer[s] [one religious denomination] over another,” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The Supreme Court has explained that this is because endorsement of a religion “sends the ancillary message to . . . nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe , 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). The Equal Protection Clause likewise prohibits the Government from impermissibly discriminating among persons based on religion. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 50 (9th Cir. 1978).
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).
The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest
The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.7 Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.8 We disagree, as explained above.
To the extent that the Government claims that it has suffered an institutional injury by erosion of the separation of powers, that injury is not “irreparable.” It may yet pursue and vindicate its interests in the full course of this litigation.
See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 767- 68 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[I]t is the resolution of the case on the merits, not whether the injunction is stayed pending appeal, that will affect those principles.”).
By contrast, the States have offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple “other parties interested in the proceeding.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976))).
The Government suggests that the Executive Order’s discretionary waiver provisions are a sufficient safety valve for those who would suffer unnecessarily, but it has offered no explanation for how these provisions would function in practice: how would the “national interest” be determined, who would make that determination, and when? Moreover, as we have explained above, the Government has not otherwise explained how the Executive Order could realistically be administered only in parts such that the injuries listed above would be avoided.
Finally, in evaluating the need for a stay, we must consider the public interest generally. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from
discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

Full Text Political Transcripts February 9, 2017: Documents President Donald Trump Travel Ban Case State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

TRUMP PRESIDENCY & 115TH CONGRESS:

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

 

17-35105


Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to provide access to case information.

Date Document Title
02/09/2017 Published Order Denying Stay
02/09/2017 Unpublished Procedural Order
02/09/2017 Appellees’ Notice of filing additional evidence in district court
02/09/2017 Daniel Escamilla Amicus Motion
02/09/2017 Daniel Escamilla Amicus Brief
02/09/2017 Redfin Corporation Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/08/2017 MongoDB, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/08/2017 DiCentral Corporation Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Listen to audio recording of Oral Arguments
02/07/2017 GoDaddy, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 OneLogin, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Technology Start-Ups Joinder to Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Medidata Solutions, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Participating Law Firms of the Employment Law Alliance Amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Order re CNN live stream and recording of oral argument
02/07/2017 David Golden Motion to Intervene
02/07/2017 SpotHero, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and District of Columbia, Amended Amicus Motion and Brief
02/07/2017 SoundCloud, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Molecule Software, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Fitbit, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Postmates Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 District court scheduling order on preliminary injunction
02/07/2017 Day sheet: Party and Counsel Listing for Telephonic Hearing
02/07/2017 Akamai Technologies, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 CREDO Mobile, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017 Quantcast Corp. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/06/2016 American Immigration Council Exhibits
02/06/2016 American Immigration Council Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2016 Jewish Federation Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Link to oral argument live stream
02/06/2017 Order clarifying live streaming oral argument
02/06/2016 Freedom Watch Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Order re live streaming argument
02/06/2017 Freedom Watch Amicus Brief
02/06/2017 Muslim Advocates Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Motion for Extension of Time
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Groupon Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Reply In Support of Emergency Motion for Stay
02/06/2017 Washington State Labor Council Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Additional Law Professors Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 National Immigrant Justice Center and ASISTA Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Letter by Additional Technology Companies Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 American Center for Law and Justice Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Pivotal Software Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 SEIU Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 HIAS, Inc. Amicus Motion
02/06/2017 Law Professors Motion to Substitute Corrected Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Anti-Defamation League Amicus Brief
02/06/2017 Constitutional Scholars Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017 Order denying motion to intervene and setting oral argument
02/06/2017 Reply in support of emergency motion for stay
02/06/2017 Exhibits to response
02/06/2017 Exhibit A to response
02/06/2017 Response to emergency motion for stay
02/06/2017 HIAS amicus brief
02/06/2017 Americans United for Separation of Church and State amicus motion and brief
02/06/2017 ACLU amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 Law Professors amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 State of Hawaii Emergency motion to intervene and Exhibits
02/05/2017 Korematsu Center amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017 Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017  Revised scheduling order
02/04/2017 Order denying immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for stay and setting schedule
02/04/2017 Emergency motion for stay
02/04/2017 Video Video recording of hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
02/03/2017 Order Temporary Restraining Order

Full Text Political Transcripts June 25, 2015: King v. Burwell Supreme Court opinion ruling in favor of Obamacare federal subsidies

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KING ET AL v BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL

6/25/15 – King v. Burwell

Oral Arguments: March 4, 2015

  Transcript: 14-114. King v. Burwell 03/04/15
 Audio; 14-114. King v. Burwell 03/04/15

Full Text Political Transcripts April 28, 2015: Supreme Court gay marriage equality case Obergefell v. Hodges Transcripts & Audio

POLITICAL TRANSCRIPTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 114TH CONGRESS:

Supreme Court gay marriage equality case

Obergefell v. Hodges Transcripts & Audio

Source: SupremeCourt.gov, 4-28-15

14-556-Question-1 Obergefell v. Hodges Transcript Audio
14-556-Question-2 Obergefell v. Hodges Transcript Audio

 

Legal Buzz June 25, 2013: Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, ruling that the formula used to enforce the nearly 50-year-old civil rights law needs to be updated.

In a 5-4 decision the court said that the coverage formula used by the government to determine which states are required to get federal permission before they make any changes to voting laws is unconstitutional. The ruling effectively puts the issue back in the hands of lawmakers to revise the law. And until then, the ruling effectively renders section five of the Voting Rights Act inoperable….READ MORE

Full Text Legal Buzz March 27, 2013: Supreme Court of the United States Oral Arguments for Defense of Marriage Act Case United States v. Windsor Audio & Transcript

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

United States v. Windsor Oral Arguments

Source: SCOTUS, 3-27-13

Docket Number: 12-307

Date Argued: 03/27/13
Play Audio:

Media Formats:

mp3  MP3

Download

Play

Windows Media  Windows Media

Download

Play

RealAudio  RealAudio 10

Download

PDF Transcript (PDF)

View

 

Background Information

No. 12-307   
Vide 12-63   
Title:    
United States, Petitioner
v.
Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Docketed:    September 11, 2012
Lower Ct:    United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  Case Nos.:    (12-2335, 12-2435)
  Decision Date:    October 18, 2012
    Rule 11
Questions Presented …READ MORE

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 11 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due October 11, 2012)
Sep 18 2012 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 19, 2012, for all respondents.
Oct 10 2012 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer in opposition filed.
Oct 18 2012 Judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 19 2012 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in opposition filed.
Oct 26 2012 Supplemental brief of petitioner United States filed.
Oct 29 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.
Oct 29 2012 Supplemental brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer filed. (Distributed)
Nov 1 2012 Supplemental brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Nov 8 2012 Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)
Nov 13 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.
Dec 3 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.
Dec 7 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch�s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.
Dec 11 2012 Vicki C. Jackson, Esq., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the positions that the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case, and that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives lacks Article III standing in this case.
Dec 13 2012 Briefing proposal of the parties and Court-appointed amicus curiae filed.
Dec 14 2012 Upon consideration of the letter of December 13, 2012, from the Solicitor General on behalf of the litigants and the amicus curiae invited to brief and argue this case, the following briefing schedule is adopted. On the merits, the brief of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Tuesday, January 22, 2013. The brief of the Solicitor General, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Friday, February 22, 2013. The brief of Edith Windsor, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Tuesday, February 26, 2013. The reply brief of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, not to exceed 6,000 words, is to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court. On the jurisdictional questions, the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae, not to exceed 10,000 words, is to be filed on or before January 22, 2013. The briefs of the Solicitor General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, and Edith Windsor, not to exceed 10,000 words each, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, February 20, 2013. Reply briefs of the litigants and the Court-appointed amicus curiae, not to exceed 4,000 words, are to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court.
Dec 14 2012 Other amici curiae briefs shall be filed within the time allowed under Rule 37.3(a) of the Rules of this Court, except that amici curiae briefs on the merits in support of the positions of the Solicitor General and/or Edith Windsor shall be filed within 7 days after the brief of the Solicitor General on the merits is filed. The litigants, Court-appointed amicus curiae, and other amici curiae shall indicate on the cover of each brief filed which issue or issues are addressed in that particular brief in addition to the information required by Rule 37.3 of the Rules of this Court.
Jan 2 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Jan 7 2013 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Jan 8 2013 The time to file the brief, on the jurisdictional questions, of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including January 24, 2013.
Jan 8 2013 The time to file the briefs, on the jurisdictional questions, of the Solicitor General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, and Edith Windsor, is extended to and including February 22, 2013.
Jan 10 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jan 22 2013 Joint appendix filed. (Distributed) (Statement of costs received.)
Jan 22 2013 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2013 CIRCULATED.
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Court-appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amici curiae of Law Professors (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Organization for Marriage (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Westboro Baptist Church in support of neither party (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty, Life and Law Foundation, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of International jurists and academics (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Declaration (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for the Protection of Marriage (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Robert P. George, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Indiana and 16 other states (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Counsel (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Catholic Answers, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Matthew B. O’Brien (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dovid Z. Schwartz (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of United States Senators Orrin G. Hatch, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Helen M. Alvare filed. (Merits) VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Social Science Professors (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle filed. ( Merits) (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of The Beverly LaHaye Institute, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 6 2013 Record from U.S.C.A. for 2nd Circuit is electronic.
Feb 13 2013 Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District of New York is electronic.
Feb 13 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of petitioner United States (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Motion for enlargement of time and divided argument filed by the parties and Court-appointed amici curiae.
Feb 26 2013 Brief amicus curiae of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LBGT Equality (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association) concerning the immutability of sexual orientation (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of 278 Employers and Organizations Representing Employers (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Utah Pride Center, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Professors Nan D. Hunter, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft in support of neither party (Jurisdiction) out of time.
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Political Science Professors filed. (Distributed).
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Sociological Association (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the States of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Equality Council, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Organization of American Historians, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Empire State Pride Agenda, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Former Federal Intelligence Officer (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of OutServe-SLDN Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Women’s Law Center, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family and Child Welfare Law Professors (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Anti-Defamation League, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Law Professors, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Gary J. Gates (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Dr. Donna E. Shalala, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Former Senior Justice Department Officials, et al. (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Former Senators Bill Bradley, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Partnership for New York City (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of 172 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles County Bar Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Honorable John K. Olson (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Historians, American Historical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Honorable John K. Olson (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Federalism Scholars (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Hon. Lawrence J. Korb, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Fair Administration of Taxes (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief of Former Federal Election Commission Officials (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 4 2013 Motion for enlargement of time and divided argument GRANTED and the time is to be divided as follows: on the jurisdiction issues, the Court-appointed amicus curiae is allotted 20 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 15 minutes, and respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is allotted 15 minutes. On the merits, respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is allotted 30 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 15 minutes, and respondent Windsor is allotted 15 minutes.
Mar 15 2013 Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft GRANTED.
Mar 19 2013 Reply of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 19 2013 Reply of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of Court-appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)

 

Full Text Legal Buzz March 26, 2013: Supreme Court of the United States Oral Arguments for Proposition 8 Case Hollingsworth v. Perry Audio & Transcript

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Hollingsworth v. Perry Oral Arguments

Source: SCOTUS, 3-26-13

Docket Number: 12-144

Date Argued: 03/26/13
Play Audio:

Media Formats:

mp3  MP3

Download

Play

Windows Media  Windows Media

Download

Play

RealAudio  RealAudio 10

Download

PDF Transcript (PDF)

View

Background Information


Title:    
Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners
v.
Kristin M. Perry, et al.
Docketed:    August 1, 2012
Linked with 12A688
Lower Ct:    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  Case Nos.:    (10-16696, 11-16577)
  Decision Date:    February 7, 2012
  Rehearing Denied:    June 5, 2012
Questions Presented  ….READ MORE

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 30 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2012)
Aug 2 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Perry, Stier, Katami, and Zarillo.
Aug 3 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com
Aug 10 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent City and County of San Francisco.
Aug 24 2012 Brief of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo in opposition filed.
Aug 24 2012 Brief of respondent City and County of San Francisco in opposition filed.
Aug 30 2012 Brief amici curiae of Judge Georg Ress, and The Marriage Law Foundation filed.
Aug 30 2012 Brief amici curiae of William N. Eskridge, Jr., et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the United States, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Declaration Alliance & United States Justice Foundation filed.
Sep 4 2012 Reply of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed.
Sep 5 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Oct 29 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.
Nov 13 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.
Dec 3 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.
Dec 7 2012 Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, �2 of the Constitution in this case.
Dec 12 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners
Dec 12 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent City and County of San Francisco.
Jan 7 2013 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Jan 7 2013 Application (12A688) for leave to file petitioners’ brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Jan 11 2013 Application (12A688) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Jan 18 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Perry, Steir, Katami, and Zarillo
Jan 18 2013 Record from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit is electronic.
Jan 21 2013 Brief amici curiae of Coalition of African American Pastors USA, et al.( 2nd REPRINT) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 22 2013 Joint appendix filed. (2 Volumes and Supplement). (Distributed) (Statement of costs filed)
Jan 22 2013 Brief of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2013 CIRCULATED.
Jan 23 2013 Brief amici curiae of David Benkof, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of History and Related Disciplines filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty, Life and Law Foundation, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Westboro Baptist Church in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Daniel N. Robinson, Ph.D. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of International Jurists and Academics (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Thomas More Law Center and Chuck Storey, Imperial County Clerk (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of thirty-seven scholars of federalism and judicial restraint filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of High Impact Leadership Coalition filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Lighted Candle Society filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Record from U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California. (10 Boxes)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for the Protection of Marriage (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Patrick Henry College filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Robert P. George, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. (Distributed).
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty Counsel, Inc. and Campaign for Children filed.
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Catholic Answers, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Catholics for the Common Good and the Marriage Law Project filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Matthew B. O’Brien (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leon R. Kass, Harvey C. Mansfield and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Michigan filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Ethics and Public Policy Center filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Minnesota for Marriage filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Helen M. Alvare (Merits) (Distributed). filed. VIDED.
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Social Science Professors. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 18 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Rev. Rick Yramategui, et al. filed.
Feb 21 2013 Brief of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo filed. (Distributed)
Feb 21 2013 Brief of respondent City and County of San Francisco filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Brief amicus curiae of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality (Gay Lesbian Medical Association) concerning the immutability of sexual orientation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Utah Pride Center, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Columbia Law School Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Hon. Judith S. Kaye (Ret.), et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Marriage Equality USA filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Beverly Hills Bar Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Edward D. Stein, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of California filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Center for Lesbian Rights filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Jonathan Wallace, Meri Wallace, and Duncan Pflaster filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of International Human Rights Advocates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Kenneth B. Mehlman, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Walter Dellinger filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Maria Nieto filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Anthropological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Political Science Professors filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Anti-Defamation League, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Adoptive and Child Welfare Advocates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Gary J. Gates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Organization of American Historians and the American Studies Association filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Equality California filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Organization for Women Foundation and the Feminist Majority Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Southern Poverty Law Center filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Foreign and Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of William N. Eskridge, Jr., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Professors of Family Law filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the State of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Council of Churches, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Companies filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Teachers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Sociological Association filed. VIDED (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Equality Council, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Women’s Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure Professors Erwin Chermerinsky and Arthur Miller filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Garden State Equality filed. (Distributed)
Mar 15 2013 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Mar 19 2013 Reply of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 26 2013 Argued. For petitioners: Chalres J. Cooper, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D. C.; and Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Full Text Legal Buzz March 25, 2013: Filings & Briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States’s Defense of Marriage Act & California’s Proposition 8 Cases

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Filings in the Defense of Marriage Act  and California’s Proposition 8 cases

Source: SCOTUS

Listed below are live links to the orders, case filings, and other information pertaining to the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 cases.  Click on each item to access further information.

Orders
12-7-12 Grant Order
12-11-12 Amicus Appointment Order
12-14-12 Briefing Schedule
Case Filings
12-144 Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., v. Kristin M. Perry, et al.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition filed by Kristin M. Perry
Brief in Opposition filed by City and County of San Francisco
Reply Brief
Brief of Petitioner on the Merits
Brief of Respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffery J. Zarrillo
Brief of Respondent City and County of San Francisco
Reply Brief of Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al.
12-307 United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, In Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition of Edith Schlain Windsor
Brief in Opposition of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Supplemental Brief of United States
Supplemental Brief of Edith Schlain Windsor
Supplemental Brief of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Reply Brief
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the
United States House of Representatives
Brief for Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Addressing Jurisdiction
Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Petitioner United States (Merits)
Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Merits)
Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction)
Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits)
Reply Brief of Court appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction)
Reply of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction)
Reply Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)

Legal Buzz June 28, 2012: Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act Mandate as Tax in 5-4 Vote — Health Care Law Largely Stands, Victory for President Obama

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

THE HEADLINES….

IN FOCUS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IN 5-4 VOTE

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius — Full Text Opinion — SCOTUS, 6-28-12

Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand, in Victory for Obama

Source: NYT, 6-28-12
The Supreme Court left standing the basic provisions of the health care overhaul, ruling that the government may use its taxation powers to push people to buy insurance….READ MORE

  • Romney, GOP Pledge to Repeal Health Law: Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans on Thursday pledged a renewed effort to repeal the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul, undeterred by the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the law’s central tenet…. – WSJ, 6-28-12
  • Mitt Romney Can Use Healthcare Against Barack Obama: President Barack Obama’s White House staffers can take pride—his signature legislative achievement passed constitutional muster and they can begin to implement its most controversial provisions…. – US News, World Report, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court upholds Obama health care mandate: The historic 5-4 decision will affect the way Americans receive and pay for their medical care…. – USA Today, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: The Mandate Can Stay: The Supreme Court has announced its long-awaited decision on President Obama’s health care law…. – ABC News, 6-28-12
  • Summary of Supreme Court health care decision: The following is an edited text of the Supreme Court health-care decision…. – MarketWatch, 6-28-12
  • Following Supreme Court health-care ruling, House GOP will again try to repeal law: Now that the health-care law has been largely upheld by the Supreme Court, the GOP-controlled House plans to vote to repeal it–again…. – WaPo, 6-28-12
  • What Supreme Court’s health-care ruling means for you: The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday to uphold the bulk of the health-care law means that some popular provisions — such as requiring insurers to accept people regardless of preexisting conditions and to accept children up to age 26 on parents’ plans…. – MarketWatch, 6-28-12
  • Lawmakers react to Supreme Court decision upholding Obama health care law: The nation’s highest court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of President Obama’s sweeping health care law, which was celebrated as victory among Democrats, while blasted by Republicans who vowed a repeal…. – Fox News, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court health care decision: 10 top tweets on SCOTUS confusion: What was not helpful sorting through the Supreme Court’s health care decision on Thursday morning? Twitter. Politicos tweeted about their growing frustration at the varying accounts coming through their feeds in the minutes after the ruling was issued:1…. – Politico, 6-28-12
  • The Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare. Here’s why: The Supreme Court can’t let the public’s already shaky opinion of it get any worse. If Obamacare isn’t upheld, it’s further evidence that the court decides according to partisan politics, rather than legal principle…. – CS Monitor, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court set to rule on health care reform: The stakes could hardly be higher as the Supreme Court is set to rule on President Obama’s health care law Thursday. The legal challenge highlights two fundamentally different views of the role of government…. – CBS News, 6-28-12
  • Either way Supreme Court rules on ‘Obamacare,’ insurers win: The Supreme Court is shaking up the political chessboard today by ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act – aka “Obamacare” – and there is one player who will win no matter what the decision may be: the insurance industry…. – LAT, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court to rule Thursday on health-care law: The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care legislation Thursday morning, a potentially game-changing decision that would define the power of the national government in a presidential election year…. – WaPo, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court health care decision has Washington awaiting history: The Supreme Court’s decision on the health-care law is the one thing nearly everyone has an opinion on…. – WaPo, 6-27-12
  • Supreme Court health care ruling expected Thursday: The Supreme Court is due to make a ruling on President Obama’s health care law that could affect the political landscape, the economy and the lives of millions of Americans…. – WaPo, 6-25-12

Legal Buzz June 28, 2012: Supreme Court Strikes Down Stolen Valor Act in United States v. Alvarez

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

THE HEADLINES….

IN FOCUS: SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN STOLEN VALOR ACT

United States v. Alvarez — Full Text Opinion — SCOTUS, 6-28-12

Supreme Court Strikes Down Stolen Valor Act

Source: ABC News Radio, 6-28-12

The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act on Thursday, saying that the First Amendment defends a person’s right to lie — even if that person is lying about awards and medals won through military service.

The case started in 2007 when California man Xavier Alvarez was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, the federal legislation that made it illegal for people to claim to have won or to wear military medals or ribbons they did not earn.  Alvarez had publicly claimed to have won the country’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor, but was later revealed to have never served in the military at all.

Alvarez was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service, but he and his lawyer appealed the decision, saying that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional — essentially that it violates a person’s right to lie….READ MORE

Lying About Earning War Medals Is Protected Speech, Justices Rule

Source: NYT, 6-28-12

The justices said that a federal law making it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech….READ MORE

Legal Buzz June 25, 2012: Supreme Court of the United States Rules in Arizona vs. United States — Upholds Centerpiece of Arizona Immigration Law & President Barack Obama’s Reaction Statement

LEGAL BUZZ

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger published by Facts on File, Inc. in late 2011.

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

IN FOCUS: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPHOLDS CONTROVERSIAL PART OF ARIZONA IMMIGRATION REJECTS OTHER PORTIONS — BOTH ARIZONA & PRESIDENT OBAMA CLAIM VICTORY

Arizona v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States, 6-25-12

Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Part of Arizona Immigration Law: Police officers in Arizona are allowed to check the immigration status of every person who is stopped or arrested, the Supreme Court ruled Monday morning. But the court struck down other key parts of the law.
The controversial immigration law passed in Arizona two years ago and has been opposed by President Obama.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the policy could interfere with federal immigration law, but that the court couldn’t assume that it would.
The law — known as SB 1070 — was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010, but immediately challenged by the Obama administration. A lower court sided with the administration and agreed to prevent four of the most controversial provisions from going into effect…. – ABC News Radio, 6-25-12

 

  • Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected much of Arizona’s immigration law but permitted the state’s instruction to its police to check the immigration status of people they detain…. – NYT, 6-25-12
  • Obama and Romney React to Court’s Immigration Decision: President Obama and Mitt Romney reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of a tough Arizona immigration law…. – NYT, 6-25-12
  • Romney Silent on Court’s Immigration Ruling: Mitt Romney is ready to talk about health care, but not the Supreme Court’s split decision on Arizona’s immigration law…. – NYT, 6-25-12
  • Court mostly rejects Arizona immigration law: The US Supreme Court on Monday struck down key parts of an Arizona law that…. – CNN, 6-25-12
  • Praise, concern and uncertainty as Mass. reacts to Supreme Court decision on Arizona immigration law: The Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s immigration law today generated praise, concern and a measure of uncertainty in Massachusetts, one of many states where controversy erupted after Arizona passed the law in 2010…. – Boston.com, 6-25-12
  • Dan Stein: Immigration Decision a Victory for Arizona – But it Has its Pitfalls: The Supreme Court today handed the State of Arizona a hard fought victory in upholding the most contentious part of the state’s immigration enforcement bill, section 2(b) of SB 1070. That section requires state and local enforcement officials to verify…. – Fox News, 6-25-12
  • High court rejects part of Arizona immigration law: The Supreme Court threw out key provisions of Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion could go forward — that police must check the status of people stopped for … Businessweek, AP, 6-25-12
  • Both Parties Claim Victory in Arizona Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona’s tough immigration law, ruled against life sentences for juveniles and rejected corporate campaign spending limits…. – WSJ, 6-25-12
  • Chief Justice Roberts crucial in Arizona immigration ruling: Helping drive (albeit from the back seat) the Supreme Court toward what amounted to a victory for the Obama administration in the Arizona immigration case was a man often seen as one of Obama’s chief antagonists at the court…. – LAT, 6-25-12
  • Arizona immigration ruling boosts Obama in battle for Hispanic vote: The Supreme Court handed a political victory to President Obama on Monday by vindicating his decision to challenge Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law and, in turn, put Mitt Romney and other Republicans who had endorsed the law in bind as both…. – WaPo, 6-25-12
  • Obama pleased parts of Arizona’s immigration law struck down, concerned about what’s left: Pressing his immigration agenda, President Barack Obama said he is pleased the Supreme Court struck down key parts of Arizona’s immigration law Monday but voiced concern about what the high court left intact. The court allowed a provision … – WaPo, 6-25-12
  • President Barack Obama’s response to ruling on the Arizona immigration law: President Barack Obama’s statement reacting to the US Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law: “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. What this decision makes…. – WaPo, 6-25-12
  • Most of Arizona immigration law cannot stand, Supreme Court rules: But the Supreme Court upheld a provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they have reason to suspect are illegal immigrants – the most controversial part of the Arizona immigration law. By Warren Richey, Staff writer / June … CS Monitor, 6-25-12
  • President Barack Obama’s response to ruling on the Arizona Immigration Law: President Barack Obama’s statement reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law…. – WaPo, 6-25-12
  • Obama ‘pleased’ and ‘concerned’ on Arizona: Obama ‘pleased’ and ‘concerned’ on Arizona … This is an issue where Obama’s desire to win the debate on immigration nationally…. – Politico, 6-25-12
  • Obama ‘pleased’ with Supreme Court ruling on Arizona immigration law: President Obama said he’s “pleased” with the US Supreme Court decision knocking down parts of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, and he quickly used the decision to call for comprehensive immigration reform and to tout his own recent…. – Chicago Tribune, 6-25-12

Statement by the President on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States

I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.

At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.

I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.

Legal Buzz April 18, 2012: US Supreme Court Rules Torture Victim Protection Act Applies Only to Individual, Not Organizations in Azzam Mohamad Rahim v. Palestinian Authority

LEGAL BUZZ


COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Justices Limit Suits Under Law On Torture

Source: NYT, 4-28-12

In the case of an American killed in the West Bank, the Supreme Court found that only “individuals” could be sued….READ MORE

Full Text of Case Opinion: 4/18/12 – Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority

Supreme Court says torture victim law applies only to people, not organizations

Source: WaPo, 4-18-12

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a federal law that allows torture victims to sue their overseas assailants does not permit suits against corporations or political groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The justices said the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 authorized lawsuits only against individuals responsible for torture and killing.

“The text of the TVPA convinces us that Congress did not extend liability to organizations, sovereign or not,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the united court.

“There are no doubt valid arguments for such an extension. But Congress has seen fit to proceed in more modest steps in the act, and it is not the province of this branch to do otherwise.”…READ MORE

IN FOCUS: US SUPREME COURT RULES TORTURE VICTIM ACT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE NOT ORGANIZATIONS

Supreme Court says torture victim law applies only to people, not organizations: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a federal law that allows torture victims to sue their overseas assailants does not permit suits against corporations or political groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization…. – WaPo, 4-18-12

  • US top court limits who can be sued under torture law: The US Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a complaint filed against the Palestinian Authority by relatives of an American citizen allegedly tortured in a West Bank prison. The unanimous decision by the nine-member panel effectively…. – AFP, 4-18-12
  • Justices Say Palestinian Authority Can’t Be Sued Over Torture: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that the family of an American citizen killed during a visit to the West Bank may not sue the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization under a 1991 federal law…. – NYT, 4-18-12
  • Torture victim’s family can’t sue PLO for damages, Supreme Court says: US Supreme Court, in a narrow reading of a federal anti-torture law, ruled Wednesday against a son who sought redress from the PLO and Palestinian Authority for the death of his father, a US citizen, during a visit to the West Bank…. – CS Monitor, 4-18-12
  • Supreme Court: PLO, corporations can’t be sued under torture law: Foreign political organizations like the Palestinian Liberation Organization and multinational corporations cannot be sued for the torture or murder of persons abroad, including Americans, under the terms of a 1991 US anti-torture law…. – Chicago Tribune, 4-18-12
  • Organizations Can’t Be Sued For Torture, High Court Rules: The US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that organizations cannot be sued for the torture under the Torture Victim Protection Act. The decision came in the case of Azzam Mohamad Rahim, who immigrated to the United States in the…. – NPR, 4-18-12
  • High court limits suits under torture victim law: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that organizations may not be sued for claims they aided in torture or killings abroad under a law aimed at helping torture victims. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the court’s opinion…. – BusinessWeek, 4-18-12
  • Supreme Court: torture law applies only to people: The Palestinian Authority and PLO cannot be sued under a 1991 US victim protection law over the alleged torture of an American in a West Bank prison, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, holding that the law only applies to…. – Baltimore Sun, 4-18-12
  • A Supreme Typo: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court reminded us that diction matters, unanimously ruling that by using the word “individual” rather than “person,” a federal statute limited liability for torture committed overseas to individuals…. – WSJ, 4-18-12
  • Supreme Court Says Torture Victim Can’t Sue Palestinian Authority: The family of a Palestinian American killed while in the Palestinian Authority’s custody cannot sue the organization, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday morning. Azzam Rahim, a naturalized American citizen, was visiting the West Bank…. – Huff Post, 4-18-12

Legal Buzz April 2, 2012: US Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Offenses including Minor Offenses

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Offense

Source: NYT, 4-2-12

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband…. READ MORE

Full Text Supreme Court Opinion Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington

%d bloggers like this: