9th Cir.;
17-16426

The court of appeals affirmed a district court order. The court held that the district court carefully and correctly balanced the hardships and the equitable considerations as directed by the Supreme Court in modifying its previously issued preliminary injunction.

On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that imposed a 90-day ban on travel on nationals from six majority-Muslim countries (§2(c)), suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days (§6(a)), and imposed a cap on the number of refugees permitted to enter the country in fiscal year 2017 (§6(b)). Plaintiffs State of Hawai'i and Dr. Ismail Elshikh filed suit challenging order on myriad constitutional grounds. It moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining enforcement “to protect its residents, its employers, its educational institutions, and its sovereignty.” The district court issued an order enjoining enforcement of §§2 and 6 in their entirety. The court of appeals subsequently upheld the Hawaii district court injunction as to §§2(c), 6(a), and 6(b) only. On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government's petition for writ of certiorari and granted in part a requested stay, expressly enjoining enforcement of §§2(c), 6(a) and 6(b) as to persons with a credible claim of “a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The government thereafter began enforcing the non-enjoined portions of the executive order.