Executive order

Without explanation, without referring the matter to the entire Court, and without calling for a response, Justice Kavanaugh denied a request for an emergency injunction to strike down Illinois Governor Pritzker’s executive order limiting gatherings to 50 people while exempting religious gathering.

Likely Justice Kavanaugh refused to grant the injunction because the standard is high. The Supreme Court only grants...

With no details or dissents, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for an emergency stay of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision upholding Governor Tom Wolf’s executive order “compelling the closure of the physical operations of all businesses and entities that he deemed to be nonlife-sustaining.”

Wolf allowed non-life sustaining...

A number of Pennsylvania business owners have requested that the U.S. Supreme Court stay enforcement of Governor Wolf’s executive order “compelling the closure of the physical operations of all businesses and entities that he deemed to be nonlife-sustaining.”

Governor Wolf allowed non-lifesustaining businesses to apply for a waiver; 18,746 waiver applications have been denied to date.

The business owners allege the executive...

One of the questions the Supreme Court may decide in Trump v. Hawaii is whether lower federal courts have the authority to provide injunctive relief that benefits non-parties as well as the party asking for relief. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief arguing in favor of lower federal courts authority to issue injunctive relief that benefits non-parties.

In this case Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, and three individuals sued President Trump claiming the third travel ban, which indefinitely prevents immigration from six countries:  Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen, was illegal and unconstitutional.

In Trump v. Hawaii the Ninth Circuit temporarily struck down President Trump’s third travel ban. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the Ninth Circuit decision.

An opinion in this case should be issued no later than the end of June 2018. Per a Supreme Court order issued in December 2017, the third travel ban is currently in effect regardless of the Ninth Circuit ruling.    

The Court has agreed to decide four issues. First, whether the case is justiciable, meaning whether the legal issues are “fit for review.” Second, whether the third travel ban exceeds the President’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Third, whether the Ninth Circuit nationwide injunction was overbroad. Fourth, whether the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause.

Pages