What This Means: Plaintiffs opposed the government’s request for an en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the panel’s decision followed established legal precedent. They asserted that the government failed to show irreparable harm, a likelihood of success, or any legal conflict warranting further review. Plaintiffs urged the court to deny the rehearing and allow the case to proceed on its merits.

What This Means: Plaintiffs filed a response opposing the government’s motion to dismiss their case, arguing that they have met the legal standard to proceed by presenting plausible claims supported by factual allegations. They noted that the government has repeatedly raised, and lost, on the same jurisdictional arguments in both this court and on appeal. Plaintiffs urged the court to reject the motion once again and allow the case to move forward.

What This Means: The government filed a motion at the Ninth Circuit seeking en banc rehearing of the panel’s May 14 decision declining to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction (PI). This news means that as with the TRO, the government is asking the Ninth Circuit to block the PI while this litigation proceeds. We were expecting the govt to either a.) pursue this Ninth Circuit en banc rehearing route or b.) go directly to SCOTUS (and if the Ninth Circuit denies rehearing en banc of this motion, the govt may still yet go to SCOTUS later). The Ninth Circuit set a briefing schedule giving plaintiffs 21 days to respond, on June 20.

What This Means: A preliminary injunction is a longer-term court order that requires the government to continue providing legal services throughout the duration of the lawsuit. It replaces the TRO and remains in effect unless modified by a higher court or until the case is resolved.

What This Means:
The judge reviewed the government’s arguments for lifting the temporary order and decided that the order should remain in place while the case continues. Legal services must continue during this period.

What This Means: The government asked the court to lift the temporary order requiring them to provide legal services and also argued that the judge should step aside due to alleged bias, citing federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 455, which governs judicial disqualification.

What This Means: The government asked the court to lift the temporary order requiring them to provide legal services and also argued that the judge should step aside due to alleged bias, citing federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 455, which governs judicial disqualification.

What This Means: A civil lawsuit was filed in federal court to challenge the government’s decision to stop funding legal services for unaccompanied immigrant children. The plaintiffs are asking the court to require the government to resume these services, based on federal laws and congressional appropriations.