The appellees' arguments, while various in detail, are essentially based on Trump's EO impacting the 'sovereign and quasi-soverign interests of individual States'. So it's a States Rights argument, which will greatly annoy certain so-called libertarians in the alternative media and elsewhere.
My wild guess is that the 9th Circuit will not grant Trump's emergency stay because the DOJ will not be able to show immediate harm or a public interest in not granting the stay, even though the DOJ might be correct in arguing that the TRO is overbroad. See the following part of the brief:
The Emergency Motion for a Stay Should Be Denied Because Granting It Would Cause Further Chaos. A stay is not a matter of right, but an “exercise of judicial discretion that is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case
.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating a stay motion, this Court’s discretion is guided by a four factor analysis that asks
(1) whether the applicant “is likely to succeed on the merits
;” (2) “whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
” (3) whether issuance of the stay will “substantially injure” other interested parties
; and (4) “where the public interest lies
Id.(quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).) The party requesting the stay “bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of this Court’s discretion
.” Lair, 697 F.3d at 1203(quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 433-34) (brackets omitted).As the District Court concluded, Washington is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the Executive Order. Indeed, in the ten days since the Executive Order was signed, district courts across the Nation have determined—both expressly and by implication—that claims like those advanced by Washington and Minnesota are likely to succeed on the merits.
The stronger argument seems to be to allow the status quo to remain in place pending a proper examination by the district court, which will result in a ruling which can then be appealed if necessary.
My question to those who are strongly in favor of the ban, is why
? Given that falling donkeys have harmed more people than visitors and immigrants/refugees from these seven countries, why is this travel ban so important to you? A review of procedures can be carried out without the ban being in place, without a reasonable expectation of harm, whereas the ban being in place does cause harm to families, businesses, states' interests, life in general, and so on. The case for having this temporary ban only makes real sense in the context of it not being intended to be temporary at all.