Eve Levin  //  7/23/17  //  Topic Update

In litigation over the revised travel ban, the Supreme Court stayed portions of Judge Watson’s order granting relief to refugees, but declined to block relief concerning relatives (WaPo, NYT, WSJ). 

• The Supreme Court’s order is here.
• The government had asked the Supreme Court to clarify its June 26th ruling granting a partial stay of an injunction blocking the revised entry ban after a Hawaii district court issued a revised injunction (BuzzFeed, Lyle Denniston Law News, SCOTUSBlog).
• The Government’s motion is here.
• Hawaii’s opposition is here.
• The Government’s reply is here.
• The Supreme Court has become a co-author and co-owner of the travel ban, warns Joshua Matz at Take Care.
• Marty Lederman examines the Government’s arguments at Take Care (here and here).
• Leah Litman criticizes the arguments in the government’s motion at Take Care.
• Michael Dorf notes that the government will likely interpret any ambiguities in the new injunction narrowly at Take Care.
• Amy Howe summarizes the issues at SCOTUSblog.
• Peter Margulies analyzes the Supreme Court’s order at Lawfare.
• Lyle Denniston outlines the decision’s implications at Law News.
• Ilya Somin explores the refugee issue in the Washington Post.
• Lyle Denniston summarizes Hawaii's argument on Lyle Denniston Law News.
• Also at his blog, Lyle Denniston documents the procedural complexity of the entry ban litigation.
• Arkansas Solicitor General Lee Rudofsky critiques the Supreme Court’s analysis in its stay order at SCOTUSblog.
• Also at SCOTUSblog, Frank Trinity, Chief Legal Officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, explains why the organization filed an amicus brief in the entry ban litigation.
• Cody Wofsy summarizes the Hawaii court’s order at the ACLU.
• The government’s interpretation of the term “bona fide relationship” in the Supreme Court’s order devalues many important family relationships, writes Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia at ACS Blog.

The Trump administration is considering an executive order that would expand a procedure used for expedited removal of undocumented immigrants (WaPo).

• At Immigration Prof Blog, Kevin Johnson argues that an expansion of expedited removal may be unconstitutional.

Tags: