On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court modified the injunctions imposed by federal trial judges in Hawaii and Maryland against the President’s national security Executive Order. The Supreme Court’s ruling (which agreed with many of the arguments made in our amicus brief) was a stern rebuke to a number of federal district and appellate courts that ignored the law and the Constitution which grant the President extensive powers over national security and immigration.
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, refugees and foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (countries where demonstrated terrorism concerns exist) who lack a close relationship with a person or entity in this country will not gain entry during the temporary period in which the government considers improvements to the immigration and refugee screening processes.
In an attempt to broaden the category of people who can enter this country, the State of Hawaii filed an emergency motion with the same trial judge who had imposed one of the injunctions. The State asked that judge to clarify the Supreme Court’s ruling before the Executive Order went into effect.
In a swift rejection of Hawaii’s attempt to bypass the Supreme Court (the proper place to seek clarification of that Court’s ruling), the trial judge yesterday refused to “usurp the prerogative of the Supreme Court to interpret its own order” and directed the State to seek relief in the Supreme Court.
Rather than follow the trial judge’s guidance, at least as of this writing, the State of Hawaii did not seek clarification from the Supreme Court (where it initially lost in its efforts to keep the injunction as broad as possible) but instead filed an emergency appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously sided with the State in its attack on the Executive Order.
As one would expect, the mainstream media is downplaying the significance of the Hawaii judge’s denial of the State’s efforts to bypass the Supreme Court and his decision to leave untouched the modified injunction.
The mainstream media has failed to acknowledge that the judge’s order is not just a win for our national security, but it also highlights the judge’s understanding that the Supreme Court is now the place for these important issues to be resolved.
In the coming weeks, the ACLJ plans to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting the National Security Executive Order. Join our brief by signing our petition below.
As we aggressively fight to protect our national security and Christians, we urgently need your support. Have your gift DOUBLED today. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.
In a further development in the ongoing litigation over President Trump’s National Security Executive Order, the United States Supreme Court today halted a Hawaii federal judge’s order allowing refugees to enter this country who lack a close relationship with an America entity. Previously, on June...
Sixteen years after the attacks of 9-11, with threats from multiple jihadist groups, the resurgence of the Russian Federation , a marked military buildup in China, an emboldened Iran, and the nuclear ambitions of North Korea—the arena of national security has never been more important and more...
As an update to what we explained earlier today , the State of Hawaii was rebuffed by a federal trial court yesterday in the State’s efforts to have that court clarify the United States Supreme Court’s modification of the injunctions imposed against the President’s national security Executive...
It was not coincidental that on our celebration of Independence Day, July 4th, North Korea successfully fired its first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). It is a stark reminder that the world is not “independent,” or free, from the threats of war and violence that plague our planet.