re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban

quote:

---

Well, the point I'm making is that Tiguar effectively "overruled" a superior court that had just overruled him which in itself is fricking absurd.

But, there was an assertion made in this thread that Tiguar just did what the 9th intended him to do as they "winked" at him with their decision.

Clearly, that ain't the case.

---

The 9th definitely left an opening:



Call it a "wink" or what have you, but it's clear they left it to the district court to develop additional evidence. LINK

Frankly, what's going on now appears to be a temporary stay pending additional arguments being submitted by each litigant by the 13th. LINK

The District Judge was not out of line in allowing plaintiffs to supplement and reimpose the nationwide. He did not act contrary to or buck a higher court.

quote:

---

Prof. Bray traces this history quite nicely. [link=LINK ]

---

Bad link, can you fix?

quote:

---

Well, the point I'm making is that Tiguar effectively "overruled" a superior court that had just overruled him which in itself is fricking absurd.

---

Given the state of todays' Judicial Industrial Complex, do you really find that surprising?

quote:

---

Call it a "wink" or what have you, but it's clear they left it to the district court to develop additional evidence. LINK

---

Well. Not for nothing. But, the 9th in your quoted language said the lower court needed to develop their justification and THEN, the lower used the fact that the 9th's decision left the injunction in place in only California as its "new" justification to re-install the injunction.

That's just fricking asinine on its face.

Thx

I don't want to speak for Short, but an alternative way to state a similar point is:

"While the court left open the possibility for additional evidence that would allow an enlargement of the injunction, they clearly meant substantive evidence that discussed new and unclear harms. There would not be anything unusual about such a ruling. Should the court have completely closed the door on ever enlarging the injunction, then they would be precluding the justice system from establishing reasonable and justicable review of the complaint. By way of example, if the organizations would show that such a limitation would enjoin the rights of existing persons that had completed the asylum process and were merely waiting for the grant of asylee status, then that might be a depravation of their rights to due process. If a judge had been convinced on lesser evidence, the litigants may not have ever even had a chance to make such a devestating argument. Instead, the court made a mockery of what is a common caveat to an appeals court ruling on an preliminary injunction. Although its not clear what evidence was heard, the judge merely cited a basis for renewing the objection merely because the plaintiff would have to divert its resources because its a national organization. Such jurisprudence would allow any litigant the opportunity to have a direct impact on executive action merely because they have cross circuit business operations. Such a holding would be a mockery of our justice system, and I'm sure Jon Tigar's renowned father is face palming at this very moment. Instead of hearing evidence, Tigar merely drafted a pleading to the district court in hopes they would agree with his desired policy implementation. Such types of shenigans don't belong in our legal system"

I certainly can read Shorty in that manner.