Attorneys arguing against President Trump’s travel ban submitted their final briefs to the Supreme Court Tuesday before the justices make their decision about whether to take the case.
The opponents of Trump’s travel ban argue that the Supreme Court should not hear the travel ban litigation, which would allow federal appeals court rulings from the 4th and 9th Circuits to continue blocking Trump’s ban.
“[T]he dispute over whether the President may implement his travel and refugee bans will soon become largely academic,” wrote attorneys for the State of Hawaii opposing the ban.
“The case for granting certiorari at this interlocutory stage therefore depends entirely on the Government’s assertion that it will be irreparably harmed by the delay in implementation of its Executive Order if the Court denies review. But the Government’s litigation conduct eviscerates that claim. The Government asserts…that it has acted with haste, but the record clearly indicates otherwise.”
Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union argued in separate filings to the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the federal appeals court decisions provide no reason for the Supreme Court to look at the travel ban litigation now.
“[T]he government’s request for certiorari is clearly premature,” wrote the ACLU attorneys. “Different, more permanent measures may be in place before the new Term [of the Supreme Court]; those new measures may or may not include a ban; and if they do include a ban, it may be substantially different from the Section 2(c) ban. The new measures, if challenged, would be more suitable for this Court’s review. Certiorari should be denied here, and so should the government’s extraordinary request for a stay that would allow it to implement the entire 90-day ban without merits review.”
The measures at issue in the litigation pending review by the Supreme Court stem from Trump’s second executive order aimed at implementing his travel ban. The revised order blocks foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries— Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — from entering the U.S. for 90 days.
Trump’s administration has until noon on Wednesday to respond to Tuesday’s briefs. The Supreme Court will likely decide later this week whether or not to hear the travel ban litigation.
16A1191 Trump v. Hawaii Supp. Br. Resp. on Scribd 16-1436 16A1190 Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Supp. Br. (1) on Scribd
