The State of Hawaii, having just lost their legal battle at the district court level with the original judge who told the administration that the travel ban executive order was unconstitutional, was just slapped down again at the circuit court level.
The 9th Circuit court just denied the State of Hawaii’s Emergency Motion for an Injunction.
The State of Hawaii wanted to stop the Trump administration from applying the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent travel ban ruling.
The panel of judges on the 9th Circuit who were responsible for the original ruling that reinforced initial TRO from the Hawaii district court judge, were also the same individuals who denied the injunction today. The Trump administration was not giving opportunity to respond.
The order follows:
This is an appeal of the district court’s July 6, 2017 denial of Plaintiffs’ “Emergency Motion to Clarify Scope of Preliminary Injunction.” Plaintiffs requested that the district court “clarify the scope of the Court’s June 19, 2017 amended preliminary injunction.” The district court denied the clarification motion, explaining that, because it was the Supreme Court—not the district court—that issued the June 26, 2017 order staying in part the district court’s preliminary injunction, clarification of the June 26 order must be sought from the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs have filed an emergency motion requesting that this court enjoin the Government from violating the Supreme Court’s June 26 order or directing the district court to do so.
We lack jurisdiction to address Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s order denying the motion to clarify the scope of the injunction. This court possesses jurisdiction to review only final judgments and a limited set of interlocutory orders. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a). The district court’s order neither resulted in a final judgment nor engaged in action deemed immediately appealable in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). Specifically, the district court’s order did not “grant, continu[e], modify, refus[e], or dissolv[e]” an injunction, or “refus[e] to dissolve or modify” an injunction. Id. § 1291(a)(1).
Nor do any of the various judicially-crafted bases for appellate jurisdiction apply under these circumstances. Because the “practical effect” of Plaintiffs’ requested relief is declaratory in nature—not injunctive—we do not construe their clarification motion before the district court as one for injunctive relief.
The State of Hawaii, by asking for clarification of the Supreme Court’s order by the 9th Circuit, the 9th Circuit was able to deny the request based on a procedural technicality:
Finally, we note that although the district court may not have authority to clarify an order of the Supreme Court, it does possess the ability to interpret and enforce the Supreme Court’s order, as well as the authority to enjoin against, for example, a party’s violation of the Supreme Court’s order placing effective limitations on the scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction. Cf. United States v. El-O-Pathic Pharmacy, 192 F.2d 62, 79–80 (9th Cir. 1951). But Plaintiffs’ motion before the district court was clear: it sought clarification of the Supreme Court’s June 26 order, not injunctive relief. Because the district court was not asked to grant injunctive relief or to modify the injunction, we do not fault it for not doing so.
They dismissed it entirely.
Because we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order, this appeal is DISMISSED and Plaintiffs’ “Emergency Motion under FRAP 8 and Circuit Rule 27-3 for Injunction Pending Appeal” is DENIED as moot.
BUT, the way the 9th Circuit judges framed the dismissal, it allows for Hawaii to go to the Supreme Court and to seek clarification on their order. Or they can go back to seek an injunction, not “clarification,” from the district court judge.