# 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/9873392

## 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:** Concurrence by Reinhardt
- **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/9873392

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the denial of en banc rehearing:
I concur in our court’s decision regarding President Trump’s first Executive Order—the ban on immigrants and visitors from seven Muslim countries. I also concur in our court’s determination to stand by that decision, despite the effort of a small number of our members to overturn or vacate it. Finally, I am proud to be a part of this court and a judicial system that is independent arid courageous, and that vigorously protects the constitutional rights of all, regardless of the source of any efforts to weaken or diminish them.
Judge Kozinski’s diatribe, filed today, confirms that a small group of judges, having failed in their effort to undo this court’s decision with respect to President Trump’s first Executive Order, now seek on their own, under the guise of a dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing of an order of voluntary dismissal, to decide the constitutionality of a second Executive Order that is not before this court. That is hardly the way the judiciary functions. Peculiar indeed!

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873392. Public record. Not legal advice.