Roberts Aligns With Liberal Wing in Ruling Against Trump's Asylum Ban
The high court, 5-4, refused to stay a nationwide injunction. Several former government lawyers—including Carter Phillips and Peter Keisler of Sidley Austin, and John Bellinger of Arnold & Porter—were amicus parties at the Supreme Court in a brief against the Trump administration.
December 21, 2018 at 03:25 PM
3 minute read
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. joined the U.S. Supreme Court's liberal wing Friday in refusing to block a California judge's ruling against enforcement of new policies that restrict asylum-seekers along the southern border.
The high court, voting 5-4, left in place a ruling from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco that enjoined the Trump administration from enforcing the new asylum policies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito Jr., Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas voted to grant the Justice Department's request to stay the ruling.
The Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to halt Tigar's nationwide injunction, saying the administration's new rules, limiting entry to designated ports, were crafted to confront a “crisis at the southern border.”
Tigar on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction against the new rules, replacing a temporary restraining order that he first issued on Nov. 19. Tigar found the new regulations “inconsistent with the will of Congress as expressed in the United States' immigration statutes.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Dec. 7 upheld the temporary restraining order. “Just as we may not, as we are often reminded, 'legislate from the bench,' neither may the Executive legislate from the Oval Office,” Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee wrote for the panel this month.
Several former government lawyers—including Carter Phillips and Peter Keisler of Sidley Austin, and John Bellinger of Arnold & Porter—were amicus parties at the Supreme Court in a brief against the Trump administration.
“A stay is contrary to the public interest because a stay would permit the executive branch to violate a duly-enacted statute for months,” the brief said.
Tigar's initial ruling sparked an extraordinary back-and-forth between Roberts and President Donald Trump, who called Tigar an “Obama judge.”
“Every case that gets filed in the Ninth Circuit, we get beaten,” Trump said. “And then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court, like the travel ban, and we won.”
Roberts last month issued a rare statement rebuking Trump, saying saying the United States doesn't have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
Read more:
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 AllWill the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
End of an (Chevron) Era: DC Circuit Tackles Challenge to Fishing Monitor Rule, Again
'Major Change'? 6th Circuit Steps Into Fight Over NLRB's Expanded Money Remedies
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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