Nevertheless, they believe our order applies to tens of thousands of individuals.

So, you get the sense that the appellate court was a tad exasperated with the plaintiffs' more expansive reading as to who was entitled to exemption from the EO. Nevertheless, Whitehead's subsequent order read as indignant and snippy, particularly toward the administration (but even a bit toward the appellate court). He characterized their interpretation of the 9th Circuit's prior order as "'interpretive jiggerypokery' of the highest order." He concluded that [emphasis added]: //

As anticipated, the administration quickly sought further clarification from the 9th Circuit (and, "in light of the increasingly contentious collateral proceedings over compliance in the district court," a complete stay of the district court's injunction).

On Friday, the 9th Circuit obliged and, in a very succinct order, again clarified that plaintiffs (and by inference, Whitehead) were again reading the scope of the exemption too broadly [emphasis added]:

Our order should be interpreted narrowly, on a case-by-case basis, to apply to individuals with a strong reliance interest arising prior to January 20, 2025, comparable to Plaintiff Pacito. //

Cynical Optimist
7 hours ago
“Jiggerpokery?” A judge actually used that word in an official document?

Susie Moore Cynical Optimist
7 hours ago
Yup. Now - he was actually quoting Antonin Scalia (from his dissent in King v. Burwell). 😂