Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hawaii V Trump - 9th Circuit Order Denying Post-SCOTUS Emergency Injunction
Hawaii V Trump - 9th Circuit Order Denying Post-SCOTUS Emergency Injunction
Defendants-Appellees.
requested that the district court clarify the scope of the Courts June 19, 2017
motion, explaining that, because it was the Supreme Courtnot the district
courtthat issued the June 26, 2017 order staying in part the district courts
preliminary injunction, clarification of the June 26 order must be sought from the
Supreme Court. Plaintiffs have filed an emergency motion requesting that this
Case: 17-16366, 07/07/2017, ID: 10501556, DktEntry: 3, Page 2 of 3
court enjoin the Government from violating the Supreme Courts June 26 order or
denying the motion to clarify the scope of the injunction. This court possesses
jurisdiction to review only final judgments and a limited set of interlocutory orders.
See 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292(a). The district courts order neither resulted in a
1292(a). Specifically, the district courts order did not grant[], continu[e],
clarification motion before the district court as one for injunctive relief. See, e.g.,
Alsea Valley All. v. Dept of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181, 1186 (9th Cir. 2004). And
discussed belowPlaintiffs may seek injunctive relief from the district court. Cf.
Nehmer v. U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846, 856 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007);
All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc. v. M/V Sea Producer, 882 F.2d 425, 428 n.2 (9th Cir.
1989).
2
Case: 17-16366, 07/07/2017, ID: 10501556, DktEntry: 3, Page 3 of 3
Because we lack jurisdiction to review the district courts order, this appeal
Finally, we note that although the district court may not have authority to
clarify an order of the Supreme Court, it does possess the ability to interpret and
enforce the Supreme Courts order, as well as the authority to enjoin against, for
limitations on the scope of the district courts preliminary injunction. Cf. United
States v. El-O-Pathic Pharmacy, 192 F.2d 62, 7980 (9th Cir. 1951). But
Plaintiffs motion before the district court was clear: it sought clarification of the
Supreme Courts June 26 order, not injunctive relief. Because the district court
was not asked to grant injunctive relief or to modify the injunction, we do not fault
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1
Plaintiffs emergency motion also seeks a writ of mandamus. Because the district
courts denial of Plaintiffs motion for clarification was not clear error, the
extraordinary power of mandamus is not appropriate. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist.
Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 65455 (9th Cir. 1977). Plaintiffs motion for a writ of
mandamus is DENIED.