On June 28, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a published decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. __ (2018) [PDF version]. Writing for a 5-Justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion reversing the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm a preliminary nationwide injunction against the entry restrictions against nationals from certain countries in President Donald Trump's Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 (Sep. 24, 2018) [see article]. The majority concluded that the Proclamation fell within the scope of the President's statutory authority and that the plaintiffs failed to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claims, wherein they alleged that the entry restrictions were motivated by anti-Muslim animus. Please see our full article on the majority decision to learn more [see article].
On the same day, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in IRAP v. Trump, No. 17-1194 and Trump v. IRAP, 17-1270. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, like the Ninth, had upheld a District Court-issued preliminary nationwide injunction against the entry restrictions in Proclamation No. 9645. However, the Fourth Circuit decision was issued after the Supreme Court had granted the Government's petition for certiorari regarding the Ninth Circuit decision. Where the Ninth Circuit decision focused primarily on the statutory arguments against the proclamation, the Fourth Circuit decision focused on the Establishment Clause arguments [see blog]. Unsurprisingly, because the Fourth and Ninth Circuit decisions dealt with similar injunctions, and because the Supreme Court addressed both the statutory and Establishment Clause claims in Trump v. Hawaii, the Court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its decision in Trump v. Hawaii.
The reversal of the Ninth Circuit decision and the vacatur of the Fourth Circuit decision upholding injunctions against the “travel ban” mean that those decisions can no longer be cited to as precedent. The cases will now be sent back to lower courts for further consideration in light of Trump v. Hawaii. However, the lower courts will be bound to follow the determinations of the majority in Trump v. Hawaii in any further litigation.
To learn more about the President's Proclamation No. 9645 and earlier editions of the “travel ban,” as well as related issues, please see our full index of articles. We will continue to update the index as necessary going forward.
Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.
Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com
No comments:
Post a Comment