,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Here's what the decision says (thread summarizing 40 page decision to follow).
1 -Court initially notes 9th circuit blocked prior ban bc it exceeded DJT's authority granted by Cong and it ran afoul of Immigration Act.
2-WH ignored guidance of 9th Cir and EO-3 suffers from "precisely the same maladies as its predecessor" including not showing allowing ...
3- entry of 150M ppl is "detrimental to the interests of the US" & EO-3 plainly discriminates based on nationality in way 9th Cir prohibited
4- Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of winning, that irreparable harm is likely & the balance of the...
5-of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of granting the temporary restraining order.
6-Next section gives background on the case which I won't review here. But my summary of EO-3 is at wp.me/p4cKmJ-1hr
7-This section does note that plaintiffs filed amended complaint and TRO motion after latest ban issued in late September.
8-Complaint noted that EO-3 doesn't renounce calls for Muslim ban and that new ban suffers from same problems as old (& record is now worse)
9-Hawaii has argued EO-3 harms residents, employers & colleges. Also, a Dr. Elshikh and Muslim Asso of HI are also plaintiffs & claim harms.
10-Ct agrees state has standing (based on colleges). Dr. Elshikh, a US citizen, has standing bc mother-in-law now banned from coming.
11-There are two John Doe plaintiffs - a naturalized citizen from Yemen and a green card holder born in Iran (each with banned family).
