# State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 17, 2017 · 858 F.3d 1168

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873390

## Case

- **Full name:** State of WASHINGTON; State of Minnesota, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 17, 2017
- **Citations:** 858 F.3d 1168; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4838; 2017 WL 2468700
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Canby, Clifton, Friedland, Reinhardt, Berzon, Kozinski, Bybee, Bea, Callahan, Ikuta
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873390

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating requests to proceed pro se during trial may be denied as untimely

## Opinion text

AMENDED ORDER
This court in a published order previously denied a motion of the government for a stay of a restraining order pending appeal. 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017). That order became moot when this court granted the government’s unopposed motion to dismiss its underlying appeal. Order, Mar. 8, 2017. No party has moved to vacate the published order. A judge of this court called for a vote to determine whether the court should grant en banc reconsideration in order to vacate the published order denying the stay. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. Vacatur of the stay order is denied. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 , 115 S.Ct. 386 , 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (holding that the “extraordinary remedy of vacatur” is ordinarily unjustified when post-decision mootness is caused by voluntary action of the losing party).
This order is being filed along with a concurrence from Judge Reinhardt, a concurrence from Judge Berzon, a dissent from Judge Kozinski, a dissent from Judge Bybee, and a dissent from Judge Bea. No further opinions will be filed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873390. Public record. Not legal advice.