Saturday, June 3, 2017

USSC Expedites Travel Order Case...

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Supreme Court took the rare step on Friday of expediting consideration of a major case, rapidly accelerating the schedule for reviewing the Fourth Circuit’s blocking of President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order. 
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court on Thursday. Under the Court’s rules, a response from the plaintiffs would be due July 3. By that time the Court would be on recess for the summer, meaning that the justices would vote at the Court’s annual pre-Term conference, which will take place on September 25, on whether to take the case. That would typically mean hearing arguments in December or January, with a final decision coming down in early or mid-2018.
On Friday, the Supreme Court rapidly expedited everything. The ACLU—which represents the plaintiffs—have been ordered to file their response by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 12. The ACLU lawyers must also respond to DOJ’s application for a stay by that time.
The Court could conceivably then vote immediately on whether to take the case, or anytime shortly thereafter. Under a normal briefing schedule, the Court would then hear arguments in October, and issue a decision by the end of 2017.
It’s also possible that the Court could accelerate briefing on an emergency basis, then hold arguments over the summer, or possibly even in June before recessing for the summer. The Court could make clear by the week of June 12 which course it is pursuing.


opie said...

The court could not vote to take the case. Wishful thinking.

caliphate4vr said...

The peaceful religion strikes London again.

Commonsense said...

Just validates the wisdom of Trump's order.

And the foolishness of European immigration policy.

Why would you want to let in people whose default position is to kill you, your love ones, and destroy everything you believe.

Anonymous said...

The insane say Trump is insane

wphamilton said...

I have read the Government brief, which to me was rambling and disjointed. But the highlights look like a winning argument ... if Trump can refrain from damaging his own case.

It begs the question, why hasn't Trump read his own legal argument, or at least have a lawyer explain it to him? Or does he simply not comprehend it, yet believes that he does?