Top Ten 2018 Religious Liberty / Church-State Developments

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year-- including developments internationally in the mix.  My choices are based on the importance of the pick to law or policy, regardless of whether the development has garnered significant media attention..  The selection obviously involves a good deal of subjective judgment, and I welcome e-mail comment from those who disagree with my choices.  So here are my Top Ten picks as another rather chaotic year comes to an end:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court issues a narrow decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, failing to resolve the basic question of how to balance religious liberty and free speech rights against demands for equality.
2. Battles continue in the courts over whether existing protections against sex discrimination cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
3. The third version of President Trump's "travel ban" is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. Release of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report on sexual abuse by Catholic priests in 6 dioceses refocuses attention on the clergy sex abuse scandal.
5. Mass shooting in Pittsburgh synagogue raises new fears of anti-Semitism in the United States.
6. U.S. Supreme Court protects the speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers, finding California's FACT Act unconstitutional.
7. Canada and Ireland repeal blasphemy laws, while blasphemy cases elsewhere (Pakistan, Spain, Austria, India) continue to attract attention.
8. Federal district court holds federal Female Genital Mutilation statute unconstitutional.
9. Free speech challenges to state laws designed to combat individual participation in boycott of Israel meet success.
10. Congress takes action to fight genocide; passes Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act and.  Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act .

Don Byrd at Blog From the Capital has a different set of the Top Ten.

Pakistan Blasphemy Case Is Not Over As Government Agrees To Seek Another Review

As previously reported, last week Pakistan's Supreme Court reversed the blasphemy conviction of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who had been sentenced to death in 2010 for allegedly uttering derogatory remarks against the Prophet Muhammad. However hard-line Islamist opposition to the Court's decision has developed. CBS News reports:

Pakistan's top court acquitted Bibi on Wednesday of the charges carrying the death penalty, infuriating hard-line Islamists who held three days of nationwide protests demanding her execution. The enraged protesters torched scores of vehicles, blocked highways and attacked government and public property; a radical cleric also threatened to kill the three judges who acquitted Bibi. According to the Reuters news agency, Cleric Khadim Hussain Rizvi, who leads the Islamist Tehreek-e-Labbaik (TLP) party, had his Twitter account suspended on Monday for inciting violence.

The protests ended after the government agreed to impose a travel ban on Bibi and allow her case to be reviewed. A review petition was filed in the Supreme Court....

Earlier in the day, police said over 150 people were arrested on charges of arson, vandalism and violence during the protests.

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reports that Bibi's lawyer has fled to the Netherlands after threats on his life.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Brendan T. Beery, Prophylactic Free Exercise: The First Amendment and Religion in a Post-Kennedy World, (Albany Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Jaclyn L. Neo, Regulation of Religious Communities in a Multicultural Polity, (Forthcoming in Rex Ahdar (ed.), Research Handbook on Law and Religion (Edward Elgar, 2018)).
• Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony (Women's Court of Canada), ((2018) 30(2) Canadian Journal of Women and the Law).
• Catherine Hardee, Who's Causing the Harm, (Kentucky Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Tamir Moustafa, Constituting Religion: Islam, Liberal Rights, and the Malaysian State, (Cambridge University Press, 2018).
• Peter Margulies, The Travel Ban Decision and the Twilight of Judicial Craft: Taking Statutory Context Seriously, (Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 183 (2018).
• Kyriaki Topidi, Faith-Based Education and Equality: Towards an Education of Prejudice? - The Example of Faith Schools in England, (July 30, 2018).
• Caitlin Carlson & Hayley Rousselle, Report and Repeat: Investigating Facebook's Hate Speech Removal Process, (April 1, 2018).
• Vivien Chen, Law and Society in the Evolution of Malaysia's Capital Market Regulation, (Asian Journal of Law and Society, Forthcoming).
• Vivian Grosswald Curran, The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's Evolving Genocide Exception, (UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, Vol. 23, 2019, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Martina E. Cartwright, Book, Chapter, and Verse: The Rise and Rise of the Freedom of Conscience Movement Post-Windsor and Obergefell, [Abstract], 23 Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender 39-106 (2016-2017).

Supreme Court Issued Clean-Up Orders In Other Pregnancy Clinic and Travel Ban Cases

In light of Tuesday's Supreme Court decisions in the travel ban and the pro-life pregnancy center cases, yesterday the Supreme Court issued clean-up orders, remanding for consideration in light of those decisions several similar cases in which petitions for review were pending. (Order List (June 28, 2018)):

In Woman's Friend Clinic v. Becerra (Docket No. 16-1146); Livingwell Medical Clinic v. Becerra (Docket No. 16-1153); Mountain Right to Life v. Beccera  (Docket No. 17-211); the court granted certiorari, vacated 9th Circuit judgments below, and remanded for further consideration in light of National Institute of Family and Life  Advocates v. Becerra.

In International Refugee Assistance v. Trump (Docket No. 17-1194) and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance (Docket No. 17-1270), the Court granted certiorari, vacated 4th Circuit judgments below, and remanded for further consideration in light of Trump v. Hawaii.

Trump's Travel Ban Upheld By Supreme Court; Establishment Clause Challenge Rejected

This morning in Trump v. Hawaii, (US Sup. Ct., June 26, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the latest version of President Trump's travel ban, rejecting Establishment Clause challenges to the ban. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, said in part:

The case before us differs in numerous respects from the conventional Establishment Clause claim. Unlike the typical suit involving religious displays or school prayer, plaintiffs seek to invalidate a national security directive regulating the entry of aliens abroad. Their claim accordingly raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of the constitutional right and the manner of proof. The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office. These various aspects of plaintiffs’ challenge inform our standard of review....

Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen....

For our purposes today we assume that we may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review.... As a result, we may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds....

The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.

The majority also used its opinion to formally reject the long-discredited Korematsu case that in 1944 upheld the internment of Japanese Americans.

Justices Kennedy and Thomas each filed a separate concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg, saying in part:

The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns. But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created. Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent. 

Judge Orders ICE To Stop Pressuring Iraqi Religious Minorities To Agree To Deportation

Last year, in exchange for Iraq being removed from President Trump's travel ban Executive Order, Iraq agreed to take back its nationals who are subject to deportation orders in the U.S.  Many of these are Chaldean Christians and members of other minority religious groups in Iraq who say they fear persecution or torture if they are returned. (See prior related posting.)  As reported by Bloomberg, a Michigan federal district court yesterday issued an order preventing ICE agents from pressuring these Iraqis to agree that they wish to be returned.  Iraq will take them back only if they sign such an agreement. Yesterday's Order (full text) in Hamama v. Adducci, (ED MI, June 20, 2018), also requires posting of notices in detention facilities holding these Iraqis informing them that they will not be penalized if they refuse to state they wish to be removed from the U.S.

Transcript and Audio of Arguments in Trump v. Hawaii Now Available

The full transcript and full audio recordings of today's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii are now available. At issue is the legality of the third version of President Trump's ban on travel to the U.S. by nationals of several countries.  Washington Post, reporting on the arguments, said that the conservative majority on the Court appeared to agree that the President has authority to issue the ban.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments In Travel Ban Case Today

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the legality of the most recent version of President Trump's controversial "travel ban."  As explained by this argument preview from SCOTUSblog, as well as this New York Times preview, one of the major questions that the Court will face is whether Donald Trump's anti-Muslim statements  during his campaign for office, and his Tweets while in office, should be considered in deciding whether his later executive action violates the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS blog's case page has links to the numerous briefs filed in the case, as well as to commentary and other primary source documents.  I will post a link to the transcript of the oral argument when it becomes available later today.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• R. Michael Cassidy, Catholic Social Thought and Criminal Justice Reform, (Journal of Catholic Social Thought, Forthcoming).
• Giancarlo Anello & Mohamed A. Arafa, The Meaning of ‘Religion’ in the Legal Context: Some Remarks on the Pragmatics of Islam in Egyptian Law in Multicultural Societies Law, (39 Rivista Telematica [Milan Univ. L. J. “Italy”] (Fall 2017)).
• Trudo Lemmens, Charter Scrutiny of Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying Law and the Shifting Landscape of Belgian and Dutch Euthanasia Practice, (85 Supreme Court Law Review (2nd Series) (Forthcoming)).
• Micah Schwartzman, Official Intentions and Political Legitimacy: The Case of the Travel Ban, (NOMOS LXI: Political Legitimacy(2018)).
• Amos N. Guiora, Inciting Terrorism on the Internet: The Limits of Tolerating Intolerance, (Incitement to Terrorism (A. Bayefsky & L. Blank, eds, Brill 2018)).
• Sabir Ali, Usman Umer & Muhammad Waqas Butt, Role of English Press in Dissemination of Liberal Values for Women Empowerment in Pakistan: Honor Killing of Qandeel Baloch, (May 30, 2016).
• Mohammed Hussain, Vanja Hamzić: Sexual and Gender Diversity in the Muslim World: History, Law and Vernacular Knowledge, (VRUE Journal, Spring 2018, Forthcoming).
• Linda Sugin, Competitive Philanthropy: Charitable Naming Rights, Inequality, and Social Norms, (79 Ohio St. L. J. _ (2018)).

From SmartCILP:

• Gregory Brazeal, Between Description and Prescription: Law, Wittgenstein, and Constitutional Faith, 120 West Virginia Law Review 363-426 (2017).

Update On Third Travel Ban Developoments

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 25 in Trump v. Hawaii, a group of challenges, including an Establishment Clause challenge, to President Trump's third travel ban. (See prior posting.) Over 70 amicus briefs have been filed in the case.  Links to them are on SCOTUSblog's case page.  Meanwhile, yesterday the White House announced that the President has signed a Proclamation removing Chad from the list of countries covered by the travel ban, saying in part:

Republic of Chad has improved its identity-management and information sharing practices sufficiently to meet the baseline security standard of the United States.  Chad nationals will therefore again be able to receive visas for travel to the United States.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Josef Hien & Christian Joerges, Dead Man Walking: Current European Interest in the Ordoliberal Tradition, (EUI Department of Law Research Paper No. 2018/03 (2018)).
• Robert T. Miller, What is a Compelling Governmental Interest?, (Journal of Morality and Markets, (Forthcoming)).
• Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, #Metoo Meets the Ministerial Exception: Sexual Harassment Claims by Clergy and the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, (William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice (2019 Forthcoming)).
• Melissa Crouch, Constitutionalism, Religion and Inequality: Perspectives from Asia, (Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Forthcoming).
• Susanna Mancini & Kristina Stoeckl, Transatlantic Conversations The Emergence of Society-Protective Antiabortion Arguments in the United States, Europe, and Russia, (S. Mancini, M. Rosenfeld, The Conscience Wars. Rethinking the Balance between Religion, Identity, and Equality, Cambridge University Press, 2018).
• Earl M. Maltz, The Constitution and the Trump Travel Ban, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Grant Christensen, A View from American Courts: The Year in Indian Law 2017, (Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 41, 2018).
• Sharon Cruz, The Search for Third Options in a Two-Bathroom Society, (1 International Comparative, Policy & Ethics Law Review 77 (2018)).
• Mohamed A. Arafa, Islam and Elder Care in Egypt after the Arab Spring Uprisings: Between Divine Law and Secular Law: Quo Vadis?, (CALUMET: Intercultural L. & Humanities Rev. [Law & Religion] (Online Fall 2017)).

From SmartCILP:

• Elizabeth B. Ludwin King, Transitional Justice and the Legacy of Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, 81 Albany Law Review 121-143 (2017/2018).
• A. Reid Monroe-Sheridan, "Frankly Unthinkable": The Constitutional Failings of President Trump's Proposed Muslim Registry, 70 Maine Law Review 1-34 (2017).
• Waseem Ahmad Qureshi, Can the Burning of Holy Books Ever Be Justified?, 24 Washington & Lee Journal of Civil Rights & Social Justice 63-102 (2017).

Another 3rd Travel Ban Cert. Petition Filed

As previously reported, last month the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the third version of President Trump's travel ban.  In light of that, plaintiffs who were largely successful in a similar challenge in the 4th Circuit (see prior posting) have now filed a petition for certiorari (full text) with the Supreme Court, telling the Court:

The court of appeals denied the cross-appeal below, which argued that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity.  This petition seeks certiorari on that question, which is not presented in Hawai‘i. In addition, this petition raises the same four questions already before the Court in Hawai‘i, and requests that the cases be consolidated once again.

Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• David Bleich, Mitochondrial DNA Replacement: Moral and Halakhic Concerns, (International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family, Forthcoming).
• SpearIt, Legal Punishment As Civil Ritual: Making Cultural Sense of Harsh Punishment, (ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy, Vol. 5 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 1).
• Richard R. Carlson, The Sincerely Religious Corporation, (January 31, 2018).
• Desirée C. Schmitt, The Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability in the Travel Ban Cases: Kerry v. Din Revisited, (February 2018).
• Joanna C. Schwartz, The Case Against Qualified Immunity, (Notre Dame Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Teri Dobbins Baxter, Child Marriage as Child Abuse and Constitutional Violation, (February 1, 2018).
• Muhammad Ahmad, Jihad, Jihadi Organizations and Liberation Struggle, (Hazara Islamicus, 6:2 (2017), 15-31).
• Muhammad Mehmood, Artificial Insemination in Shari’ah: A Case of Test-Tube Baby in Shari’ah and Its Legal Status in Pakistan, (Pakistan Annual Research Journal, 2017).

From SmartCILP:

• Angela C. Carmella, Catholic Institutions in Court: The Religion Clauses and Political-Legal Compromise, [Abstract], 120 West Virginia Law Review 1-94 (2017).

4th Circuit En Banc Says Trump's Third Travel Ban Violates Establishment Clause

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc today, in opinions spanning 285 pages, affirmed a Maryland federal district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the Proclamation setting out the third version of President Trump's travel ban.  In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (4th Cir. en banc, Feb. 15, 2018), the court by a vote of 9-4 held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.  Chief Judge Gregory's majority opinion said in part:

[H]ere the Government’s proffered rationale for the Proclamation lies at odds with the statements of the President himself. Plaintiffs here do not just plausibly allege with particularity that the Proclamation’s purpose is driven by anti-Muslim bias, they offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President. This evidence includes President Trump’s disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims; his repeated proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States; his subsequent explanation that he would effectuate this “Muslim” ban by targeting “territories” instead of Muslims directly; the issuance of EO-1 and EO-2, addressed only to majority-Muslim nations; and finally the issuance of the Proclamation, which not only closely tracks EO-1 and EO-2, but which President Trump and his advisors described as having the same goal as EO-1 and EO-2.....

While the majority ultimately concluded that it would not rely on President Trump's pre-election statements in reaching its conclusion, it nevertheless indicated that it would have been permissible to do so:

Perhaps in implicit recognition of the rawness of the religious animus in the President’s pre-election statements, the Government urges us to disregard them. This is a difficult argument to make given that the President and his advisors have repeatedly relied on these pre-election statements to explain the President’s post-election actions related to the travel ban....  [I]n McCreary, the Supreme Court reminded us that “the world is not made brand new every morning.” .... Because “reasonable observers have reasonable memories,” these statements certainly provide relevant context when examining the purpose of the Proclamation.

The majority concluded:

In sum, the face of the Proclamation, read in the context of President Trump’s official statements, fails to demonstrate a primarily secular purpose. To the objective observer, the Proclamation continues to exhibit a primarily religious anti-Muslim objective. Our constitutional system creates a strong presumption of legitimacy for presidential action and we often defer to the political branches on issues related to immigration and national security. But the disposition in this case is compelled by the highly unusual facts here. Plaintiffs offer undisputed evidence that the President of the United States has openly and often expressed his desire to ban those of Islamic faith from entering the United States. The Proclamation is thus not only a likely Establishment Clause violation, but also strikes at the basic notion that the government may not act based on “religious animosity.”

Six of the judges would have also found a likelihood of success on at least some of plaintiffs' statutory challenges to the Proclamation. Four concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions were also filed. Pursuant to an earlier U.S. Supreme Court order, the court stayed the injunction pending a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on today's decision.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In 3rd Travel Ban Challenge; Asks For Argument on Establishment Clause

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order (full text) granting review in Trump v. Hawaii, (Docket No. 17-965, cert. granted 1/19/2018).   In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the third version of President Trump's travel ban is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, but stayed its injunction pending Supreme Court review. (See prior posting.) While the 9th Circuit avoided ruling on plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, the Supreme Court ordered the parties to brief and argue that issue (raised as Question 3 in Hawaii's brief in opposition), as well as the issues raised by the original petition for certiorari.  SCOTUSblog's case page has links to additional primary source material relating to the case.

Government Seeks Supreme Court Review of Third Travel Ban

The Justice Department last week filed a petition for certiorari (full text) in Trump v. State of Hawaii, a challenge to the President's third travel ban.  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the third version of President Trump's travel ban is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act. (See prior posting.)  The 9th Circuit avoided deciding the question of whether the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause. SCOTUSblog has more on the cert. petition and the background of the case.

9th Circuit: Trump's 3rd Travel Ban Violates Immigration Act

In State of Hawaii v. Trump, (9th Cir., Dec. 22, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, agreeing with the district court (see prior posting), concluded that President Trump's third travel ban is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, saying in part:

The Proclamation, like its predecessor executive orders, relies on the premise that the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., vests the President with broad powers to regulate the entry of aliens. Those powers, however, are not without limit. We conclude that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation once again exceeds the scope of his delegated authority. The Government’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) not only upends the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has enacted through the INA, but it deviates from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well. Further, the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The Proclamation once again conflicts with the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. Lastly, the President is without a separate source of constitutional authority to issue the Proclamation.

The court avoided deciding the question of whether the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause.  The court also limited the district court's preliminary injunction to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Also, as already ordered by the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit stayed its injunction pending Supreme Court review. Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

4th Circuit En Banc and 9th Circuit Hear Arguments In Challenge To Third Travel Ban

On Wednesday, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in State of Hawaii v. Trump, a challenge to President Trump's third travel ban Proclamation. In the case a Hawaii federal district court-- without reaching the Establishment Clause question-- issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order barring enforcement of most portions of this latest, more focused, version of President Trump's travel ban.  The court (See prior posting.)  The Hill reports on the arguments.

Yesterday, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard two hours of arguments (audio of full arguments) in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, another challenge to the same travel ban Proclamation.  In the case, a Maryland federal district court held that the Proclamation violates provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibit denial of immigrant visas on the basis of nationality, and that, like the prior two bans, the third travel ban also violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.)  The Hill reports on the arguments.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction while appeals are pending in both cases.  (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Stays Preliminary Injunction Against Trump's 3rd Travel Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted a complete stay of the preliminary injunction that a Hawaii federal district court had issued against President Trump's third travel ban. The 9th Circuit had lifted the ban in part. (See prior posting.)  But today's order (full text) in Trump v. Hawaii (Sup. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017) stays the injunction completely while the case is being appealed to the 9th Circuit and then to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court noted that the 9th Circuit is handling the appeal on an expedited basis.  Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor indicated that they would have denied the stay application.  Washington Post reports on today's ruling by the Supreme Court. [corrected]

UPDATE: Later today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a similar stay while appeals are pending of a preliminary injunction against the third travel ban that has been issued by a Maryland federal district court. (See prior posting.)  Today's order (full text) comes in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017).  Again Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagreed with the majority.

US Asks Supreme Court For Full Stay Pending Appeal of Injunction Against 3rd Travel Ban

As previously reported, a week ago the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed in part the preliminary injunction issued by a Hawaii federal district court against enforcement of President Trump's third travel ban.  Yesterday, the government filed an application (full text) in the case (Trump v. State of Hawaii) seeking to have the preliminary injunction stayed completely while the case works its way through appeals to the 9th Circuit and to the Supreme Court.  According to a report from SCOTUSblog, the Justices have asked the challengers to file a response to the government's application by Nov. 28.