https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.
In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.
No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

It should be noted that the granting of an injunction normally suggests that the judge has an expectation of who will win the suit, and the lifting of such injunction by a higher court may suggest that the higher court has a different expectation.

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Even when the SCOTUS count was 7-2?

That seems a pretty indicative not so minor detail to me.

Plus, isn’t it pretty clear legislatively and internationally what asylum laws are and how they’re complied with?

(09-12-2019 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.
In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.
No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

It should be noted that the granting of an injunction normally suggests that the judge has an expectation of who will win the suit, and the lifting of such injunction by a higher court may suggest that the higher court has a different expectation.

It means that the trial judge might have that expectation. And, that is only one of several factors in the PI.

The standard of review isnt de novo -- the standard is abuse of discretion. The district judge popped in a nationwide order originally, which was trimmed back by the 9th Circuit to the 9th Circuit. Tigar then re-opened then re-issued the nationwide injunction. That got fast tracked to SCOTUS.

Finally, when granting or denying temporary relief, the Justices almost never explain their reasoning. And we dont know whether all seven justices who did not publicly dissent in fact voted for or against the stay. All we know is that there are 5 votes who voted for the stay -- and we have zero knowledge of not just how many but the reasonings of the voters (except the reasoning of Sotomayor and Ginsburg, that is)

I cant tell you the number of times a client won or lost a motion to reverse a preliminary injunction at the appellate level and subsequently got a mirror image ruling on the appeal after full litigation.

(09-12-2019 05:45 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Even when the SCOTUS count was 7-2?

That seems a pretty indicative not so minor detail to me.

We actually dont know the tally -- the only things we know are that the government position got at least 5 votes, and two made public their dissent.

The voting results are not made public in matters re: temporary relief.

Quote:Plus, isn’t it pretty clear legislatively and internationally what asylum laws are and how they’re complied with?

If they are, then expect a very quick summary judgement at the trial court. Followed by a relatively simple ruling at the 9th Circuit. Followed by a denial of cert at the SC.

I dont know the devil in the details here. But the judicial history even at this early stage indicates that this may be a new twist.

(09-12-2019 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It means that the trial judge might have that expectation. And, that is only one of several factors in the PI.
...
I cant tell you the number of times a client won or lost a motion to reverse a preliminary injunction at the appellate level and subsequently got a mirror image ruling on the appeal after full litigation.

It's probably clearer that the trial court had that expectation than it is that the SCt didn't, but I'd still say it's a lean in that direction.

(09-12-2019 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.
In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.
No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

It should be noted that the granting of an injunction normally suggests that the judge has an expectation of who will win the suit, and the lifting of such injunction by a higher court may suggest that the higher court has a different expectation.

e.g. - fisa warrant issuance?

who knows now?

this is why it's a problem how it's evolved....

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

which is XACLY! fk'n why it's turned into politics and why I DID NOT choose that pathological of THEE illogical...

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

Im saddened though -- elsewhere a poster called #s, Optimistic, and myself the 'Three Amigos', ostensibly because we disagreed in tandem with him. Now that I disagree with a point brought up by #s, I guess we arent in lockstep any more. No more 'Three Amigos'.... {sad face}

(09-12-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

all that 'legalese' results in why they rarely hear such cases....

explain why they chose this one...

#muhvariables

(09-12-2019 07:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im saddened though -- elsewhere a poster called #s, Optimistic, and myself the 'Three Amigos', ostensibly because we disagreed in tandem with him. Now that I disagree with a point brought up by #s, I guess we arent in lockstep any more. No more 'Three Amigos'.... {sad face}

somebody has to 'win', yah?

(09-12-2019 07:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

all that 'legalese' results in why they rarely hear such cases....

explain why they chose this one...

#muhvariables

I would thank that the issue of whether a national injunction issues on an expedited program plays a part. Everything about this case has been uber fast tracked. And has ping ponged between the District Court and the 9th Circuit once, and is headed to the 9th a second time.

SC has a real reason to step in and stop the rapid fire ping pong game.

(09-12-2019 07:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

all that 'legalese' results in why they rarely hear such cases....

explain why they chose this one...

#muhvariables

I would think the issue of whether a national injunction issues on an expedited program plays a part. Everything about this case has been uber fast tracked. And has ping ponged between the District Court and the 9th Circuit once, and is headed to the 9th a second time.

SC has a real reason to step in and stop the rapid fire ping pong game.

completely agree....every portion of the bold was long overdue...

that's the irony of previous positioning to toss back to the lower courts w/o consideration...

"fast tracking" is hardly a novel concept....

(09-12-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Quote:The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court's block on the policy.

In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought protection in the first country they traveled through, which in many cases would be Mexico, and were denied. The restriction primarily affects Central Americans. Immediately after the new policy was announced, four immigrant-rights groups filed lawsuits, and earlier this week, a federal judge reinstated a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants. Those lawsuits are ongoing.

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

Hunh.

Are they immigrants or illegal aliens?

Aren’t immigrants, by definition, legally here?

I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read our old founding papers stuff, wherein is the asylum for third party fence jumpers or Nigerian citizenship seekers found?

7-2 sounds pretty sound to me. I’ll rest easier tonight. Lol

(09-13-2019 01:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 06:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://theweek.com/speedreads/864371/su...ake-effect

Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

Hunh.

Are they immigrants or illegal aliens?

Aren’t immigrants, by definition, legally here?

I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read our old founding papers stuff, wherein is the asylum for third party fence jumpers or Nigerian citizenship seekers found?

7-2 sounds pretty sound to me. I’ll rest easier tonight. Lol

You assume with two open dissenters a 7-2 vote. If you want to keep parroting that, fine. It's an incorrect view. And with that fact in front of you (twice now) it borders on ignorance.

But the simple fact is that a final vote on a temporary relief issue is never released. Or keep jamming your fingers in your ears and keep going LALALALALALALALALA. Your choice. Your bleating it continuously doesnt make it fact or true. Bummer.

The *only* thing we know about the vote is at least 5 voted for it, and two dissented.

In the bigger scheme--it makes logical sense that one should only be able to seek asylum in the first place removed from where they are endangered.

You are terrified to live in Honduras, so you seek asylum in Mexico. You don't then travel all the way THROUGH Mexico to go to the US "just because" the US is better than Mexico.

That has always bothered me. Refugees should just get to pick which country they want to go to.

(09-13-2019 10:34 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  In the bigger scheme--it makes logical sense that one should only be able to seek asylum in the first place removed from where they are endangered.

You are terrified to live in Honduras, so you seek asylum in Mexico. You don't then travel all the way THROUGH Mexico to go to the US "just because" the US is better than Mexico.

That has always bothered me. Refugees should just get to pick which country they want to go to.

That has always bothered me. Refugees should "NOT" just get to pick which country they want to go to.

iffy

...and I agree and have been saying so from the very beginning of these exoduses.