[U] Muslim Ban 2.0 Update — “New” Brooklyn Edition: The Parties Report The Settlement Is OFF… On To Trial, Then!

FINAL UPDATE: 05.10.2017 @ 9:30 PM EDT — “. . .CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for settlement conference pursuant to parties’ agreement before Judge Amon in status conference on May 10, 2017. . . .”

9:30 AM EDT — There will be a status call with the able Judge Amon today, in Brooklyn, to schedule additional proceedings: “. . .SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on May 10, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. before Judge Carol Bagley Amon. . . . .” [The Trump Administration (as we said they would) loses this one — End Update.]

Many will recall that we have been following the Ninth Circuit, and Fourth Circuit appeals of earlier nationwide injunctions against 45’s Muslim Ban 2.0. Many will also recall that we reported — that in Brooklyn’s federal trial level court, it looked like the matter would be settled by agreement, rather than engendering yet another potential appellate level rift, between federal circuits. We expected that this Brooklyn case would lag behind the others (despite being an early ground breaker in halting 45’s first putative banning executive order). And. . . it has. But now the pace may quicken, anew, in Brooklyn.

Why? Well, we learned this afternoon that the settlement talks between the Trump Administration, and the putative visitors, immigrants and visa holders detained that night at Kennedy have reached an impasse. The plaintiffs have thus asked the quite-able trial level Judge Amon in Brooklyn to schedule a status hearing, to work out a new motion, and trial preparation schedule. The Trump Administration opposes such a hearing and would like to simply brief its own old motion to dismiss. I expect 45 will lose on the motion to dismiss, but I also expect that the able judge will hold the status hearing, first — even if just to get a renewed lay of the land. Here’s the operative portion of today’s letter/motion, as filed:

. . . .The parties previously informed the Court that settlement negotiations were in progress and that they were exchanging draft settlement agreements. ECF No. 196. The Court stayed this case until May 1, 2017 in order to allow those negotiations to continue. ECF No. 197.

After further discussion, the parties have not been able to resolve the case.

In light of these developments, Plaintiffs respectfully request the scheduling of a status conference in order to seek the assistance of the Court or a Magistrate Judge in resolving the parties’ differences or, if a resolution is not feasible, to determine how to proceed with the litigation. . . .

We still expect that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion will be the first published, here — and then some weeks later, the Fourth’s. Assuming the Supremes do not resolve all the issues prior to the NY trial date, this USDC EDNY case would be the next one to go to trial, and be sent up on appeal. But that would not likely occur before mid-August of 2017 (and the eclipse!), at this point.

Now you know. G’night all — I’m out, to find a fine supper club, and then to the theater, for the evening! Grin. . . “one shade the less, one ray the more; thus mellowed to that tender light that heaven — to gaudy day denies. . . .”

नमस्ते

Advertisements

There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: