At that point, a lawsuit against his first executive order filed by the State of Hawaii on February 3, 2017 was pending in federal court.
On March 7, 2017 President Trump's administration has filed in the U.S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit a motion to withdraw its interlocutory (from an intermediate decision) appeal of the temporary restraining order imposed by federal district judge Robart, on consent with Appellants.
On the same day, March 7, 2017, the State of Hawaii filed a motion to amend their complaint to now challenge President Trump's 2nd Executive Order - see docket of that case, Docket No. 58.
On March 8, 2017 the unopposed motion on consent of opponents, to withdraw President Trump's interlocutory appeal was granted, and the case was closed, as reflected on Pacer.gov.
On the same date, March 15, 2017 - I am not sure which was first and which was second, because the 9th Circuit decision to deny review of the already mooted decision in the dismissed appeal does not have a time-stamp - Judge Derrick Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, a judge who accepts externships from the Hawaii State University School of Law (and, there is a question whether Hawaii State law students worked on his 46-page order in favor of their school) granted a temporary restraining order to the State of Hawaii.
So, it appears that not only the 9th Circuit revived jurisdiction in an already dead case in order to make the mooted, and dead, 3-judge decision of the 9th Circuit, appear alive and "precedential", but that it did it to pitch some support for the lower court judge who, same as the 9th Circuit, has connections to the Hawaii University Law School, a party in the lawsuit.
Judge Derrick Watson in the district court, of course, relied upon the decision of the 9th Circuit which, on the date of Judge Watson's decision (March 15, 2017) was void for a week - since the appeal in which it was made as an intermediate matter, was dismissed on consent of court on March 8, 2017.
The international law firm Hogan Lovells (with headquarters in London, Great Britain, reportedly, an 11th largest law firm in the world by revenues as of 2013) that represents the state of Hawaii in that case, at taxpayers expense, and that have drummed up that humongous docket of 222 entries within 1.5 months, is already drumming up business by advertising their "success" in blocking President Trump's travel ban on their website:
At the very same time the State of Hawaii stalls my Freedom of Information request by making it prohibitively expensive to get information as to who paid and how much was paid for vacationing, wining and dining of U.S. Supreme Court justices invited by that law school, including the bills of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg who vacationed in Hawaii, at the State of Hawaii's expense, during the pendency of the lawsuit in the Hawaii district court and right when the 9th Circuit has made its now-mooted (but, as 9th Circuit pretends, still alive) decision. Ruth Ginsburg, as I said before, was vacationing within 7 miles of the chambers of one of the 9th Circuit judges who has made a decision, and had meetings with Hawaii State University Law School faculty, while three of Judge Clifton's law clerks:
- Joshua Korr;
- Aaron Henson; and
- Wayne Wagner
are currently part of that faculty, being professors at the Hawaii State University School of Law. Nothing too crooked.
Here is the FOIA request that the Hawaii State University School of Law acknowledged, listing request for records about employment of Judge Clifton (the 9th Circuit judge whose chambers are located within 7 miles from the law school where Ruth Ginsburg visited at the time Judge Clifton was making his decision regarding President Trump's TRO and who himself enthusiastically participates in the law school's activities):
By the way, Joshua Korr, law clerk to Judge Clifton in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th (federal) circuit (see his picture and information about him on the University of Hawaii School of Law as of today, which is a public record):
is listed as a law clerk for a state judge of the State of Hawaii in 2016, yet another "interesting" coincidence, further potentially miring the decision of Judge Clifton in conflicts of interest:
Here is the slideshow as to how well Ruth Ginsburg was entertained during her self-given vacation during work time in February of this year while she was likely help draft orders for the 9th Circuit, and for the Hawaii Federal district court, as well as when she was likely consulting the State of Hawaii how to fight President Trump (who she openly hates, and keeps making public statements against him, disregarding the fact that his case may come to her for review).
Watch how frail Ginsburg is - she literally cannot stand very well on her own. How can she be allowed to handle a rigorous caseload of the U.S. Supreme Court, including death penalty cases?
Note that Ruth Ginsburg is called here the State of Hawaii University School of Law's "Jurist in Residence" - and even that designation did not deter her from coming, at the time when the State of Hawaii is a party in a federal court litigation potentially heading towards the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is the bill estimate, with a demand to pay 50% down, that I received from the State of Hawaii University Law School several days ago. This information, public records of great public concern, showing whether judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, and of the 9th Circuit, are, very simply, bought by free vacations in Hawaii, should be published and available to the public for free, not hidden by allegedly high cost of research and retrieval.
185 hours to retrieve all records of who paid for judges wining and dining? And, 45 more hours for "review and segregation"? Are those records so well hidden that it requires over 23 full working days (8 hours a day) of search? Or are they so plentiful, which raises even more concerns, because the U.S. Supreme Court will, most likely, have to review a writ of certiorari from this case in the long run.
And, "another person" should be consulted about possible exemptions - who are those "other persons", I wonder - Ruth Ginsburg herself and other judges who were wined and dined and vacations for free in Hawaii? Or their private sponsors who pitched in to defray some of the costs of providing freebies to the greedy millionaire judges who would not turn a freebie down even if that screams disqualifying conflict of interest?
So, here is the bill estimate and a bill for 50% of costs for public records as to who paid and how much was paid for wining and dining U.S. Supreme Court justices by the Hawaii University School of Law, a party in the action where a temporary restraining order upon President Trump's second executive order on immigration was imposed by a judge who has interns from Hawaii State University School of Law:
- Carlos Bea, and
And you know what comes when the public thinks lowly of the lawfulness of court decisions - because they are unlawful?
The public will start disregarding those decisions.
It is a matter of time when massive civil disobedience of unlawful court orders will start, and when that starts, the judiciary should look in the mirror to find the reason why that will start happening.
For example, the law may not possibly require President Trump, who has been sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, to follow an unconstitutional order of the 9th Circuit which even the fellow judges recognize is unconstitutional - not in so many words, but quite transparent (by saying that the decision will "confound" the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts as to "what the law is").
In fact, President Trump's oath of office requires to follow only his constitutionally vested duties, and to disregard any unconstitutional interference into his duties.
So, President Trump will be in the right if he would simply disregard orders of various federal courts acting as if presidential elections are still ongoing and as if judges are his political opponents in those elections.
President Trump already made a step towards that, by saying that, if his "honed down" executive order is also not good enough, he may just as well go back to his original order, which was perfectly good in the first place.
And let the dice roll.