The United States Supreme Court has again blocked enforcement of a court order which itself blocked enforcement a Trump rule that requires proof of ability to pay possible medical bills in order to be admitted to the United States. The four liberals voted to deny the stay and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. - gwc
CHAD WOLF, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[February 21, 2020]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and by him referred to the Court is granted,and the District Court’s October 14, 2019 order granting apreliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE
KAGAN would deny the application.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from the grant of stay.
Today’s decision follows a now-familiar pattern. The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not. The Government insists—even though review in a court of appeals is imminent—that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay. And the Court yields.
.... this application is perhaps even more concerning than past ones. Just weeks ago, this Court granted a stay of a different decision involving the same administrative rule at issue here, after the Government professed urgency
because of the form of relief granted in the prior case—anationwide injunction. The Government now uses that stay—of a nationwide injunction—to insist that it is entitled to one here. But the injunction in this case is limited to one State, Illinois. The Government cannot state with precision any of the supposed harm that would come from the Illinois-specific injunction, and the Court of Appeals forthe Seventh Circuit has scheduled oral argument for next week. The Government’s professed harm, therefore, boils down to an inability to enforce its immigration goals, possibly in only the immediate term, in one of 50 States. It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.... To keep reading click on case caption above.
CHAD WOLF, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[February 21, 2020]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and by him referred to the Court is granted,and the District Court’s October 14, 2019 order granting apreliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE
KAGAN would deny the application.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from the grant of stay.
Today’s decision follows a now-familiar pattern. The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not. The Government insists—even though review in a court of appeals is imminent—that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay. And the Court yields.
.... this application is perhaps even more concerning than past ones. Just weeks ago, this Court granted a stay of a different decision involving the same administrative rule at issue here, after the Government professed urgency
because of the form of relief granted in the prior case—anationwide injunction. The Government now uses that stay—of a nationwide injunction—to insist that it is entitled to one here. But the injunction in this case is limited to one State, Illinois. The Government cannot state with precision any of the supposed harm that would come from the Illinois-specific injunction, and the Court of Appeals forthe Seventh Circuit has scheduled oral argument for next week. The Government’s professed harm, therefore, boils down to an inability to enforce its immigration goals, possibly in only the immediate term, in one of 50 States. It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.... To keep reading click on case caption above.
No comments:
Post a Comment