U.S. Supreme Court,
Immigration,
Government,
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Sep. 16, 2019
The twilight of nationwide injunctions?
In Trump v. Hawaii, the 2018 travel ban case, Justice Thomas called nationwide injunctions “legally and historically dubious.” The Supreme Court’s fast action in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, the asylum case, hints that a majority of the other justices agree.
David I. Levine
Professor
UC Law San Francisco
Professor Levine is author, coauthor, or coeditor of over sixty editions of his seven books, including Remedies: Public and Private and California Civil Procedure, as well as the author of articles on civil procedure, torts and institutional reform litigation. He has served as the Reporter for the District of Nevada's Committee on the Implementation of the Civil Justice Reform Act, and as a research analyst for the Northern District of California's Early Neutral Evaluation Program; he is an Advisor for the American Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts: Remedies.
On Sept. 11, the U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a temporary victory in its effort to implement a new immigration policy the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security unveiled in July 2019. The aim of "Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications" is to prevent nearly all Central Americans from applying for asylum if they seek entry across our southern border. Under the new policy, applicants are ineligible unless they were denied asylum first...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In