United States v. United States District Court

875 F.3d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 2017

Full text

In RE: UNITED STATES of America; Donald J. Trump; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Elaine C. Duke, United States of America; Donald J. Trump; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Elaine C. Duke, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Petitioners, v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, Respondent, Regents of the University of California; Janet Napolitano, in Her Official Capacity as President of the University of California; State of California; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of Maryland; City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Norma Ramirez; County of Santa Clara; Service Employees International Union Local 521; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; Saul Jimenez Suarez, Real Parties in Interest

ORDER Before the court is the government’s emergency motion for a stay of our order of November 16, 2017, which denied the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus and lifted a temporary stay that we had previously imposed. As the order denying mandamus relief was effective immediately upon its issuance, see Ellis v. U.S. Dist. Court, 360 F.3d 1022, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc), jurisdiction now lies with the district court, and not with this court. Compare Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S: Dist. Court, 805 F.2d 340, 341-42 (10th Cir. 1986) (ordering a stay of district court proceedings before any order denying or granting mandamus had issued). If the government seeks further relief from this court, it must do so in a new petition for mandamus. The government’s emergency motion for a stay is therefore DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.