⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “State of Hawaii v. Trump”

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018-08-10 · Published · cited 0×
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL ELSHIKH; No. 17-17168 JOHN DOES, 1 & 2; MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII, INC., D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1:17-cv-00050- DKW-KSC v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official ORDER capacity as President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-12-22 · Published · cited 10× · 878 F.3d 662
OPINION PER CURIAM: For the third time, we are called upon to assess the legality of the President’s efforts to bar over 150 million nationals of six designated countries 1 from entering the United States or being issued immigrant visas that they w
Hawaii v. Trumppublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018-08-10 · Published · cited 0× · 898 F.3d 1266
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Hawaii , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2392, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018), we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-09-07 · Published · cited 2× · 871 F.3d 646; 2017 WL 3911055; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17340
OPINION PER CURIAM: We are asked to review the district court’s modified preliminary injunction, which enjoins the Government from enforcing Executive Order 13780 against (1) grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States; and (2) refugees who have formal assurance
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-12-22 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL ELSHIKH; No. 17-17168 JOHN DOES, 1 & 2; MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII, INC., D.C. No.
Trump v. Hawaiipublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-10-02 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 293; 199 L. Ed. 2d 13; 86 U.S.L.W. 3148; 2017 WL 4339883; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 5292
Motion of Foundation for Moral Law for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.
Trump v. Hawaiipublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-09-11 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 1; 198 L. Ed. 2d 776; 86 U.S.L.W. 3086; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4431; 2017 WL 3975174
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case No. 17-16426, is hereby stayed with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending receipt of a response, due on or before Tuesday, September 12, 2017, by 12 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-12-22 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL ELSHIKH; No. 17-17168 JOHN DOES, 1 & 2; MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII, INC., D.C. No.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-12-22 · Published · cited 0×
FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL ELSHIKH; No. 17-17168 JOHN DOES, 1 & 2; MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII,
Hawaii v. Trumppublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-11-02 · Published · cited 1× · 874 F.3d 1112
ORDER In view of the Supreme Court order dated October 24, 2017, the court’s opinion filed June 12, 2017, is vacated and the appeal is dismissed as moot. The case is remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss as moot the challenge to Executive Order No. 13,780. The filing of this order shall serve as the court’s mandate.
Trump v. Hawaiipublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-10-24 · Published · cited 33× · 138 S. Ct. 377; 199 L. Ed. 2d 275
We granted certiorari in this case to resolve a challenge to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens and refugees under Section 2(c) and Section 6 of Executive Order No. 13,780. Because those provisions of the Order have "expired by [their] own terms." the appeal no longer presents a "live case or controversy." Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361
Trump v. Hawaiipublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-08-24 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 42; 198 L. Ed. 2d 769; 86 U.S.L.W. 3079; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4378
Further consideration of motion of respondents Hawaii, et al. to add John Doe as a party to No. 16-1540 is deferred to the hearing of the case on the merits.
Trump v. Hawaiipublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2018-01-19 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 923; 199 L. Ed. 2d 620
*924The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue Question 3 presented by the brief in opposition.
Hawaii v. Trumppublic domain
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2017-10-17 · Published · cited 2× · 265 F. Supp. 3d 1140
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Professional athletes mirror the federal government in this respect: they operate within a set of rules, and when one among them forsakes those rules in favor of his own, problems ensue. And so it goes wi
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-11-02 · Published · cited 0×
FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL ELSHIKH, No. 17-15589 Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-04-21 · Published · cited 0×
FILED FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL
Trump v. Hawaiipublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2018-06-26 · Published · cited 658× · 585 U.S. 667; 138 S. Ct. 2392; 201 L. Ed. 2d 775; 2018 U.S. LEXIS 4026
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
Trump v. Hawaiipublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-09-25 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 50; 198 L. Ed. 2d 778
The parties are directed to file letter briefs addressing whether, or to what extent, the Proclamation issued on September 24, 2017, may render cases No. 16-1436 and 16-1540 moot. The parties should also address whether, or to what extent, the scheduled expiration of Sections 6(a) and 6(b) of *51Executive Order No. 13780 may render those aspects of case No. 16-1540 moot. Th
Trump v. Hawaiipublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2017-09-12 · Published · cited 0× · 138 S. Ct. 49; 198 L. Ed. 2d 777
Application for stay of mandate presented to Justice KENNEDY and by him referred to the Court granted, and the issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case No. 17-16426 is stayed with respect to *50refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending further order of this Court.
Hawaii v. Trumppublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017-07-07 · Published · cited 0× · 863 F.3d 1102; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12367; 2017 WL 3048456
ORDER 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