• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Federal Judge in Hawaii puts revised federal travel ban on hold

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jstripes

Banned
Amir0x said:
weird how

i've always heard these names for the courts so it doesn't feel weird to me, so just trying to gain perspective haha
Click to expand...

Well, the numbers are meaningless to anyone who doesn't know what they are.

8th Circuit? 9th Circuit?

How many circuits are there? What is a circuit? (I'm aware it's a geographical area, but most aren't.)
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
Amir0x said:
They are requesting clarification on the order from 9th circuit, and appealing in the 4th circuit. What Sean Spicer said during this briefing.

Makes sense, since Maryland decisions fall under the 4th Circuit. 9th Circuit Covers Hawaii, and they're likely to lose that one again.
Click to expand...

Ah, interesting. Didn't get a chance to watch the briefing.

So they get to choose which lawsuit they appeal, but it would apply to both? That seems kind of crazy. Why would any state file a separate lawsuit in a circuit where they are more likely to lose then?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
jstripes said:
Well, the numbers are meaningless to anyone who doesn't know what they are.

8th Circuit? 9th Circuit?

How many circuits are there? What is a circuit? (I'm aware it's a geographical area, but most aren't.)
Click to expand...

This is a mindblower to me too. Is this not how courts work in other countries? The UK has circuit courts! I guess that's where we got it.

It's called a circuit court because the world is big and planes are recent. Appeals judges used to have to ride around the country in a big circle looking for cases to hear, hence circuit.

But I can accept that they should have actual names instead of numbers. Also they should be reorganized so the Ninth Circuit isn't by far the largest court.
 
M

MIMIC

Banned
Was probably discussed, but judges can indeed look at statements to determine whether or not a law is discriminatory; they weren't just being political. I was going through some of my law school stuff and finally got around to reading the judges opinion. The Hawaii judge's opinion cited to "Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp" which talks about some of the things that can be used to prove a discriminatory motive. One of them being the statements of decision-makers:

(a) Official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. [Such] impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination." Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242. A racially discriminatory intent, as evidenced by such factors as disproportionate impact, the historical background of the challenged decision, the specific antecedent events, departures from normal procedures, and contemporary statements of the decisionmakers, must be shown. Pp. 264-268.
Click to expand...
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 254 (U.S. 1977)

The Supreme Court also said that you can look at the sequence of events leading up to the law (which Judge Watson also pointed to), but as far as statements are concerned, they're fair game. And when you look at their statements, it's beyond obvious that this was a Muslim ban, poorly disguised as an attempt to protect the country.

If only they weren't so transparent....
 
G

Gorger

Member
H6dlZp.gif
 
B

Balphon

Member
Not terribly surprising, Hawaii's Establishment Clause argument is strong and the "revised" order did little to address the issues the first one had on that point.

Helps that the President can't open his mouth on the subject without saying something that will end up in every brief challenging the order.
 
G

Guamu

Member
Can someone explain what a"longer term preliminary injunction" is?

I can tell by the reactions that it is something against the travel ban, but I have no idea.
 
S

Sean C

Member
Guamu said:
Can someone explain what a"longer term preliminary injunction" is?

I can tell by the reactions that it is something against the travel ban, but I have no idea.
Click to expand...
The initial injunction was temporary, basically issued to stop the ban from going into effect while the court decided whether a long-term injunction lasting until the trial phase should be issued.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
STATE OF HAWAI&#8216 said:
The Federal Defendants' arguments, advanced from the very inception of this
action, make sense from this perspective—where the ”historical context and ‘the
specific sequence of events leading up to'" the adoption of the challenged Executive
Order are as full of religious animus, invective, and obvious pretext as is the record
here, it is no wonder that the Government urges the Court to altogether ignore that
history and context. See McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545
U.S. 844, 862 (2005). The Court, however, declines to do so.

Washington, 847 F.3d at 1167 (”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."). The Court will not crawl into a corner,
pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it has. The Supreme
Court and this Circuit both dictate otherwise, and that is the law this Court is
bound to follow.
Click to expand...
(source: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONVERT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)

I said God damn.
 
M

Magnet_Man

Member
The Court will not crawl into a corner, pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it has. The Supreme Court and this Circuit both dictate otherwise, and that is the law this Court is bound to follow.
Click to expand...

Throw the damn towel!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Supreme Court rules in favor for Trump in 'Muslim' travel ban
2
83
6K
ic3cait replied
Federal Judge Limits Trump Administration Travel Ban Enforcement Rules
39
5K
Futurevoid replied
Federal judge blocks Trump’s third travel ban
29
6K
Dev1lXYZ replied
  • Locked
Hawaii judge extends hold on travel ban to U.S.
14
3K
Derwind replied
9th Circuit narrows scope of Trump travel ban
13
4K
Samy replied
Top Bottom