Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a stay pending appeal of a district court injunction blocking federal agencies from implementing portions of President Trump’s executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The Court held that the government was likely to prevail on the merits of its argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter its judgment. (Order.) (SCOTUSBlog.) (NYT.) (WSJ.) Chris Geidner broke down the Court’s opinion. (Law Dork.) Steve Vladeck offered eight points of context for the decision. (One First.)
A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit on Monday lifted a lower court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting Border Patrol agents from conducting stops in Kern County without reasonable suspicion that the target is a noncitizen who violated immigration laws. The panel held that the district court erred in its analysis of standing and remanded to the district court. (Order.)
Judge Sharon L. Gleason (D. Alaska) on Monday dismissed for lack of standing a lawsuit filed by environmental groups challenging President Trump’s repeal of President Obama and President Biden’s withdrawals of portions of the Outer Continental Shelf from oil and gas leasing. (Order.)
The Department of Homeland Security issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on Monday that would charge U.S. employers seeking to hire foreign workers through the H-1B visa program a $103,265 fee. (Notice.) (WaPo.)
Steve Vladeck argued that Chief Justice Roberts’ Friday order in the White House ballroom case illustrates “how standardless the Court’s approach to ‘administrative’ stays appears to be.” (One First.)
Chris Mirasola argued that an August 14 opinion issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on the Posse Comitatus Act is legally flawed and dangerous. (Lawfare.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Trump v. California: The government filed an application on July 27 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction that blocked federal agencies from implementing certain portions of the president’s March 31 executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order filed a consolidated opposition on August 3, arguing that a stay “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program.” The government filed a reply on August 4, arguing that the states rest their challenge on “speculation about what impact the Executive Order would have if it were ultimately implemented in violation of federal law.” The government filed a supplemental brief on August 12 to “inform the Court of a recent order in a parallel case” and the states responded the same day.
Alabama v. California: Twelve states filed an application on July 29 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction that blocked federal agencies from implementing certain portions of the president’s March 31 executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order filed a consolidated opposition on August 3. The twelve states filed a reply on August 4, arguing that the executive order “imposes zero obligations on the States or public.” The government filed a second supplemental brief on August 24 to inform the Court of a promulgation of a final rule by the U.S. Postal Service that imposes new requirements for federal ballot mail. The Court on August 24 issued a stay pending appeal of the district court’s injunction.
National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation: The government filed an application on August 13 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction blocking further construction of the White House ballroom. The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed its response on August 18. The government filed its reply on August 19. On August 21, the Chief Justice stayed the injunction “pending further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court.”