'What Universe Does That Come From?' Key Questions From 9th Circuit Travel Ban Hearing
A three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments Monday over whether a lower court's ruling allowing grandparents and other family members of U.S. residents to enter the country was wrongly decided.
August 28, 2017 at 06:43 PM
11 minute read
A three-judge panel at the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appeared skeptical Monday of the government's position that a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not exclude grandparents and other family members from President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order.
The panel of three judges — the same three who ruled in June that Trump did not have the authority to issue the travel ban order in the first place — repeatedly peppered U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Hashim Mooppan with questions about why the government did not consider, for example, the relationship between a grandparent and grandchild to be a “close familial relationship.” The Supreme Court's order stayed lower courts' injunctions against the travel ban, except with respect to those with such relationships to people in the United States or refugees with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
The government interpreted “close familial relationship[s]” to include parents and parents-in-law, spouses, children, siblings, engaged couples and step-relatives. Following the order, the state of Hawaii, represented by Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal and associate Colleen Roh Sinzdak, asked U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson of the District of Hawaii to clarify it. He declined, noting he did not have the authority to clarify a Supreme Court order. Later, however, when the challenge was posed differently, Watson agreed and expanded the exemption to include grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles and brothers- and sisters-in-law.
Watson also ruled that agreements the U.S. government maintains with refugee resettlement agencies to accommodate certain refugees constitute a “bona fide relationship” between the refugee and an entity in the United States.
The government swiftly appealed that ruling. Monday, Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the case, which were live streamed. Here are three key questions judges had for the lawyers in the hearing:
“What universe does that come from?”
Gould's first question for Mooppan was how the government could possibly take the position that a grandmother, grandfather, aunt or uncle of a child in the United States would not constitute a “close familial relationship.”
“Like, what universe does that come from?” Gould asked. The question gets to the heart of disagreement between Hawaii and the government. Mooppan explained that the government's position was not that such relationships aren't close in general, but that in this case, the government needed to consider the “legal context” at hand.
Mooppan argued that the question should be what the Supreme Court meant when it adopted the order, not what a close familial relationship is generally or in other legal contexts. He said the need for an administrable, and not arbitrary, definition justified a narrower reading of “close familial relationship[s].”
“Isn't this scheme, doesn't it demonstrate a formal, well-documented relationship?”
This time it was Paez who sparred with Mooppan. Paez asked about why the arrangements between the government and resettlement organizations, called “assurances,” in which the organizations agree to help resettle refugees, don't qualify as a “bona fide” relationship with an entity under the Supreme Court's order. The order said that entity relationships had to be “formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course” to qualify as bona fide.
Mooppan said an assurance would be a documented relationship between the U.S. government and the resettlement agencies, not the agencies and refugee.
“It is formal and documented but it is a relationship between the resettlement agency and the government,” Mooppan said.
“For the benefit of a particular refugee,” Paez interjected.
“For the benefit, but not 'with,'” Mooppan replied. “The standard is whether there's a relationship with the refugee.”
“Isn't there a basic difference between individuals seeking to enter as an immigrant and those as a refugee?”
After Sinzdak took the podium, Hawkins had this question for her. He pointed out that while those seeking an immigrant visa have statutory rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act, those seeking refugee status do not share the same rights. He went on to ask whether the government could legally stop the refugee process all together.
His question marked an important difference between laws that apply to immigrants and laws that apply to refugees. There are two issues at stake in this case — the relationships between visa-seekers and those in the United States, and between refugees and those in the United States. The court doesn't necessarily have to rule the same way on both, though Hawaii maintains that both people and entities in the United States suffer some sort of injury when they're separated from immigrants or refugees with whom they have relationships.
“I'd emphasize that … while the Supreme Court did not dwell on, perhaps, these differences in the laws governing refugee admissions and immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, they certainly could have,” Sinzdak replied. “But what they looked as the salient feature was who will experience concrete hardship from the application of the executive order. And when you look at that particular question, it's clear that resettlement agencies will experience concrete hardship.”
Related Articles:
|- Big Law Takes On the Trans Military Ban
- Joe Arpaio Pardon Unleashes Surge of Censure From Lawyers
- A Law Firm 'Cleverly' Used Ellipses to Fight a CFPB Investigation. But It Still Lost.
A three-judge panel at the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appeared skeptical Monday of the government's position that a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not exclude grandparents and other family members from President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order.
The panel of three judges — the same three who ruled in June that Trump did not have the authority to issue the travel ban order in the first place — repeatedly peppered U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Hashim Mooppan with questions about why the government did not consider, for example, the relationship between a grandparent and grandchild to be a “close familial relationship.” The Supreme Court's order stayed lower courts' injunctions against the travel ban, except with respect to those with such relationships to people in the United States or refugees with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
The government interpreted “close familial relationship[s]” to include parents and parents-in-law, spouses, children, siblings, engaged couples and step-relatives. Following the order, the state of Hawaii, represented by
Watson also ruled that agreements the U.S. government maintains with refugee resettlement agencies to accommodate certain refugees constitute a “bona fide relationship” between the refugee and an entity in the United States.
The government swiftly appealed that ruling. Monday, Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and
“What universe does that come from?”
Gould's first question for Mooppan was how the government could possibly take the position that a grandmother, grandfather, aunt or uncle of a child in the United States would not constitute a “close familial relationship.”
“Like, what universe does that come from?” Gould asked. The question gets to the heart of disagreement between Hawaii and the government. Mooppan explained that the government's position was not that such relationships aren't close in general, but that in this case, the government needed to consider the “legal context” at hand.
Mooppan argued that the question should be what the Supreme Court meant when it adopted the order, not what a close familial relationship is generally or in other legal contexts. He said the need for an administrable, and not arbitrary, definition justified a narrower reading of “close familial relationship[s].”
“Isn't this scheme, doesn't it demonstrate a formal, well-documented relationship?”
This time it was Paez who sparred with Mooppan. Paez asked about why the arrangements between the government and resettlement organizations, called “assurances,” in which the organizations agree to help resettle refugees, don't qualify as a “bona fide” relationship with an entity under the Supreme Court's order. The order said that entity relationships had to be “formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course” to qualify as bona fide.
Mooppan said an assurance would be a documented relationship between the U.S. government and the resettlement agencies, not the agencies and refugee.
“It is formal and documented but it is a relationship between the resettlement agency and the government,” Mooppan said.
“For the benefit of a particular refugee,” Paez interjected.
“For the benefit, but not 'with,'” Mooppan replied. “The standard is whether there's a relationship with the refugee.”
“Isn't there a basic difference between individuals seeking to enter as an immigrant and those as a refugee?”
After Sinzdak took the podium, Hawkins had this question for her. He pointed out that while those seeking an immigrant visa have statutory rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act, those seeking refugee status do not share the same rights. He went on to ask whether the government could legally stop the refugee process all together.
His question marked an important difference between laws that apply to immigrants and laws that apply to refugees. There are two issues at stake in this case — the relationships between visa-seekers and those in the United States, and between refugees and those in the United States. The court doesn't necessarily have to rule the same way on both, though Hawaii maintains that both people and entities in the United States suffer some sort of injury when they're separated from immigrants or refugees with whom they have relationships.
“I'd emphasize that … while the Supreme Court did not dwell on, perhaps, these differences in the laws governing refugee admissions and immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, they certainly could have,” Sinzdak replied. “But what they looked as the salient feature was who will experience concrete hardship from the application of the executive order. And when you look at that particular question, it's clear that resettlement agencies will experience concrete hardship.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn First Case of Term, Justices Review 'Kafkaesque' Alabama Procedural Bar
Justices Will Consider Straight Woman's Reverse Discrimination Case Against Ohio
4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute readJudge Sounds Alarm Over Persistent Circuit Split on 'Favorable Termination' Rule
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250