Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted the government’s application for a stay of a district court preliminary injunction that prevented the government from deporting noncitizens to “third” countries without complying with certain process requirements—including providing written notice in an appropriate language and the opportunity for noncitizens to demonstrate their fear of return to that country. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. (Order and dissent.)
Judge Brian Murphy (D. Mass.) ruled on Monday evening that the Supreme Court’s order did not apply to a remedial order he had issued that required the government to provide particular noncitzens with appropriate process after he found that the government had initiated their removal in violation of the court’s preliminary injunction concerning third-country deportations. See here the order that Judge Murphy determined still applies. (Judge Murphy’s Monday order.)
Judge Allison Burroughs (D. Mass.) on Monday issued a preliminary injunction extending a temporary restraining order that barred the government from implementing a proclamation that would prevent noncitizens from entering the United States to study at Harvard. (Order.)
Judge Rita Lin (N.D. Cal.) on Monday issued a preliminary injunction ordering the government to reinstate grants to two classes of University of California researchers. (Order.) (Opinion.)
Jack Goldsmith stated that he does not know whether the U.S. attack against Iran was constitutional because “the constitutional law of war powers is inscrutable.” (Executive Functions.)
Oona Hathaway argued that the U.S. attack against Iran violated domestic and international law and set “an example of lawlessness that has the power to reshape the global legal order.” (NYT.)
Geoffrey Corn, Claire Finkelstein, and Orde Kittrie argued that the attack was legal under domestic and international law, in part because “[t]he Iran situation is at least as compelling as other instances in which prior presidents, of both parties, have unilaterally undertaken the use of force.” (WAPO.)
Pending Emergency Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Learning Resources v. Donald Trump: Plaintiffs on June 17 filed petition for certiorari before judgment in the tariff case currently pending at the D.C. Circuit and asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of the petition. Government filed response to motion to expedite on June 18. Plaintiffs filed reply in support of the motion on June 20. Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to expedite on June 20.
McMahon v. State of New York: Government filed application on June 6 to stay district court preliminary injunction that barred the government from taking actions to dismantle the Department of Education. Plaintiffs filed responses to application on June 13. Government filed reply on June 16.
Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees: Government filed application on June 2 to stay district court universal injunction that blocked the government from implementing Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to implement reductions-in-force. Plaintiffs filed response on June 9. Government filed reply on June 10.
Trump v. Washington: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court universal injunction against enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. Plaintiffs filed responses on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7. Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 15.
Trump v. New Jersey: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court universal injunction against enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. Plaintiffs filed response on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7. Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 15.
Trump v. CASA: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court universal injunction against enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. Plaintiffs filed response on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7. Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 15.