UPDATE July 7, 2017:  A 9th Circuit Court panel has ruled that it does not have authority to "interpret" the US Supreme Court ruling on Hawaii v Trump.  The three-judge panel noted that AG Chin could have obtained injunctive relief from the District Court and its eager-Obama-apppointed Judge Watson, but CHIN DID NOT ASK FOR AN INJUNCTION.  The upshot?  Chin is faking it to play to the Democrat base.  (Scroll down to sections highlighted in yellow below.)

Judge rejects Hawaii’s motion to clarify Trump’s travel ban rules

Star-Adv: ...A federal judge in Honolulu today denied an emergency motion by the state of Hawaii to broaden the scope of President Trump’s partial travel ban.

(Obama-appointed) U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson denied the motion in a written opinion, saying that clarification about the travel ban’s rules should be sought from the same court that made the ruling: the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This court will not upset the Supreme Court’s careful balancing and ‘equitable judgment’ brought to bear when ‘tailor(ing) a stay’ in this matter,” he wrote in his judgment....

read … Laughed out of Court   

UPDATE July 7, 2017 TH: Hawaii loses appeal to narrow scope of Trump's travel ban

  *   *   *   *   *

NINTH CIRCUIT DOCKETS HAWAII APPEAL REGARDING SCOPE OF TRAVEL BAN

News Release from Office of Attorney General, July 7, 2017

HONOLULU – Today the State of Hawaii asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the scope of the travel and refugee bans in Hawaii v. Trump after federal district court Judge Derrick K. Watson declined to grant Hawaii’s motion for clarification.

On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in October regarding this case. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ordered that while arguments were pending, people from the six Muslim-majority countries with no connection to the United States may not enter the country, but those with a good faith connection to a U.S. individual or entity may enter. The same standard applies with respect to refugee admissions. Hawaii alleges that the Trump Administration’s guidelines issued on June 29 are overly restrictive and do not comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling. That same day, Hawaii asked the federal district court to clarify the Supreme Court’s order.

Yesterday’s order from Judge Watson declined to address the merits of the request and suggested that Hawaii instead seek clarification from the Supreme Court. Judge Watson also stated that he would rule on the merits if instructed to do so by the higher court.

Today’s motion is directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for first review. This tracks the ordinary process for appeals within the federal courts and is done to indicate to the Supreme Court that Hawaii followed proper procedures in the courts below. Both district courts and courts of appeal routinely interpret Supreme Court decisions.

Attorney General Chin said, “We are now in the middle of a 90-day partial travel ban. The Trump Administration has reserved the option to extend or even expand the travel ban at the end of it. Many felt the balance struck by the Supreme Court was nuanced and fairly reasonable, but the Trump Administration has flouted the Supreme Court’s order from the start. What happens in the next several weeks matters a lot if the administration is not subject to the checks and balances of the courts.”

Today’s motion states in part:

Parties seeking to clarify or enforce an injunction—even an injunction that has been partially stayed by the Supreme Court—must seek relief in the first instance from the district court that issued it. That is precisely what the State of Hawaii and Dr. Elshikh did when they became aware that the Government intended to flagrantly violate the injunction against the President’s thinly veiled Muslim bans. They had obtained the injunction from the District Court of the District of Hawaii to protect their own constitutional and statutory rights, as well as the rights of the citizens of the State of Hawaii and the United States as a whole. They therefore returned to that District Court to ensure that injunction was followed and their rights were vindicated. But the District Court refused to grant this relief, making the assertion—endorsed by no party—that Plaintiffs must seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.

That is wrong. For over a week, the Government has been unlawfully excluding foreign nationals and thereby inflicting irreparable harm on the American individuals and entities with whom they have relationships. For over a week, the Government has been ignoring the dictates of the Judicial Branch, fashioning and imposing a new Muslim ban wholly divorced from any national security rationale. Every day that passes is a day when our Government is turning away human beings—from newborn children to elderly grandparents—whom the injunction requires to be admitted. It is therefore incumbent on this Court to fulfill its traditional role by reversing the District Court’s erroneous holding and issuing the injunctive relief necessary to ensure that Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional rights are protected in the manner intended by the District Court, this Court, and the Supreme Court itself.

A copy of today’s Ninth Circuit filing is attached.

# # #

NINTH CIRCUIT RULES DISTRICT COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO INTERPRET AND ENFORCE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S ORDER

News Release from Office of the Attorney General, July 7, 2017

HONOLULU – A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order this afternoon in response to today’s filing by the State of Hawaii asking the Ninth Circuit to review the scope of the travel and refugee bans in Hawaii v. Trump.

The Ninth Circuit’s order explained it lacks jurisdiction to address the State of Hawaii and Dr. Elshikh’s appeal of Judge Watson’s order denying the motion to clarify the scope of the injunction, because Judge Watson’s order denying the motion to clarify was not a final judgment nor immediately appealable. According to the court, “[b]ecause the “practical effect” of Plaintiffs’ requested relief is declaratory in nature—not injunctive—we do not construe their clarification motion before the district court as one for injunctive relief. And this scenario does not present an order of “practical finality” because … Plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief from the district court.”

Of critical importance, the Ninth Circuit said in part:

[W]e note that … the district court … does possess the ability to interpret and enforce the Supreme Court’s order, as well as the authority to enjoin against, for example, a party’s violation of the Supreme Court’s order placing effective limitations on the scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction … Because the district court was not asked to grant injunctive relief or to modify the injunction, we do not fault it for not doing so.

(Translation: The AG is faking it.  He didn’t make the right motions.)

Attorney General Chin said, “Today’s Ninth Circuit ruling makes clear that Judge Watson does possess the ability to interpret and enforce the Supreme Court’s order, as well as the authority to enjoin against a party’s violation of the Supreme Court’s order placing effective limitations on the scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction. We appreciate the Ninth Circuit for ruling so quickly and will comply.”

# # #

PDF: Hawaii AG Filing

PDF: Order Denying Motion

PDF: A copy of today’s Ninth Circuit order

AG: News Release July 6, 2017

HNN: Federal judge turns back Hawaii's motion on Trump's travel ban

AP: District judge says relationship question would be better posed to Supreme Court