||Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!
***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***
Tuaca1107 wrote:It appears that EO 13769 which was the first one, has been vacated by a panel of 5 9th circuit court judges. They really blasted the 3 who blocked the EO. The original EO block was vacated.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five-9t ... -decision/
The here is the info on both EO's "travel ban"
"Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, is an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017, that places limits on travel to the U.S. from certain countries, and by all refugees who do not possess either a visa or valid travel documents. According to its terms on March 16, 2017, this executive order revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued January 27, 2017."
Filed Order for PUBLICATION Amending Order Filed 3/15/17 (WILLIAM C. CANBY, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND) (Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt, Concurrence by Judge Berzon, Dissent by Judge Kozinski, Dissent by Judge Bybee and Dissent by Judge Bea - (SEE ATTACHED FOR FULL TEXT)) This court in a published order previously denied a motion of the government for a stay of a restraining order pending appeal. 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017). That order became moot when this court granted the government’s unopposed motion to dismiss its underlying appeal. Order, Mar. 8, 2017. No party has moved to vacate the published order. A judge of this court called for a vote to determine whether the court should grant en banc reconsideration in order to vacate the published order denying the stay. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. Vacatur of the stay order is denied. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (holding that the “extraordinary remedy of vacatur” is ordinarily unjustified when post-decision mootness is caused by voluntary action of the losing party). This order is being filed along with a concurrence from Judge Reinhardt, a concurrence from Judge Berzon, a dissent from Judge Kozinski, a dissent from Judge Bybee, and a dissent from Judge Bea. No further opinions will be filed.  (RMM) [Entered: 03/17/2017 05:57 PM]
It appears that EO 13769 which was the first one, has been vacated by a panel of 5 9th circuit court judges. They really blasted the 3 who blocked the EO. The original EO block was vacated.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest