State of Hawaii v. Trump
9th Cir.; 17-15589 The court of appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a district court order with instructions. The court held that…
June 12, 2017 at 07:58 PM
3 minute read
9th Cir.;
17-15589
The court of appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a district court order with instructions. The court held that president Donald Trump, in issuing his revised executive order regarding immigration, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress.
On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, suspended for 90 days immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of nationals from seven majority-Muslim countries (EO1). When enforcement of that order was stalled by litigation, President Trump, on March 6, 2017, issued a revised executive order (EO2) on immigration. Section 2 of that order reinstated the 90-day ban on travel for nationals of six of the seven majority-Muslim countries identified in EO1. Section 6 suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days and reduced the number of refugees to be admitted during fiscal year 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000. The State of Hawai'i, which had previously filed suit challenging EO1, amended its complaint to challenge the revised order on myriad constitutional grounds. It moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining EO2's enforcement “to protect its residents, its employers, its educational institutions, and its sovereignty.”
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All'Erroneous Assumption'?: Apple Challenges DOJ Antitrust Remedy in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readBiden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 2Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
- 3Conn. Supreme Court: Workers' Comp Insurance Cancellations Must Be Unambiguous
- 4To Avoid Conflict, NYAG Hands Probe Into Inmate's Beating Death to Syracuse-Area DA
- 5Scripture-Quoting Employee Sues Company for Supporting LGBTQ Pride
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