Timeline for What exactly did the federal judge do to Trump's executive order?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 14:48 | comment | added | Heisenberg | @barrycarter I appreciate your efforts in incorporating suggestions. If possible, I'd urge you to reformulate the answer a bit so that the parts form a coherent whole. Right now even though all the info are there, they are quite disconnected. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 14:48 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | This is, as far as I can tell from the wording, the same whether or not the alien in question were physically on US soil at the time the court made its decision. (Trump's executive order did not purport to remove aliens from Syria etc. who were already admitted into the US). | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 14:47 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | The bolded "removing" is the technical term for forcing the alien in question to board a flight away from the US. (This applies both to an alien who is at the airport asking to enter or to ones already in). The agencies cannot now do that to people covered by the court order, no matter whether they were on US soil when the order issued. But the court order doesn't tell the agencies to let those aliens enter. It merely says that the aliens in question must be allowed to remain in detention (rather than being sent back) while further litigation determines whether they have a right to enter. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 14:08 | comment | added | user2565 | Edited per comments above. Please comment if still wrong. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 14:06 | history | edited | user2565 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected errors, added historical references and quotes from order
|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 12:47 | vote | accept | Heisenberg | ||
| Jan 30, 2017 at 14:49 | |||||
| Jan 30, 2017 at 10:00 | comment | added | anaximander | "You could argue the detention itself is a form of harm" You could, but you'd have a hard time convincing the courts that a (theoretically short) period of detention is somehow worse than the various forms of death that await some refugees in the countries they're fleeing from. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 0:25 | comment | added | phoog | The order apparently has effect until at least 21 February, when Donnelly (not the Supreme Court, therefore) will hear arguments on the merits of the case. See theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/…. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 22:14 | comment | added | Publius | Second, her order does not just rely on the possibility of irreparable harm. It actually found that all factors considered when issuing an injunction cut in petitioners' favor, including likelihood of success on the merits, and whether other parties to the proceedings would be harmed. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 22:14 | comment | added | Publius | This answer contains a few errors. First, Donnelly isn't staying the order until the Supreme Court can decide, but until her district court issues an opinion on the merits (or a preliminary injunction). Such a decision (or injunction) could then be appealed to the second circuit court of appeals, and then to the Supreme Court. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 21:55 | comment | added | cpast | She's not acting on behalf of the Supreme Court; she is acting under her own (pretty vast) authority as a federal judge under Article III of the Constitution, and issuing the order from a district court. The Supreme Court only has appellate jurisdiction over this case; the district court is the entity that has the authority to decide this on first instance. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:34 | comment | added | user2565 | Edited and added info on "irreparable harm" | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:33 | history | edited | user2565 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more data, merged other edit
|
| S Jan 29, 2017 at 19:28 | history | suggested | Heisenberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
explain the term stay, and the source of Donnelly's authority
|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 18:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 29, 2017 at 19:28 | |||||
| Jan 29, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | indigochild | @barrycarter - I was preparing another answer, but it seems like you nailed it in this comment. The confusion seems to come from a lack of distinction between a stay and overturning the order. Any chance you could edit that in? | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 17:15 | comment | added | user2565 | Presumably, she's acting on behalf of the Supreme Court until they can decide. The Supreme Court has set precedent that, if there is an immediate risk of harm, courts can act on an emergency basis. Note that Donnelly has only temporarily stayed the order, not overturned it, and has only stayed the part of the order that could cause immediate harm. The Supreme Court isn't available 24/7, so lower courts have the authority to act until their decision is overturned by a higher court. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 17:08 | comment | added | Heisenberg | Donnelly's order is issued based on what authority of the District Court? Could you please explain? | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 17:06 | history | answered | user2565 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |