Dissent from abeyance order

In this published order here, the 9th Circuit grants a joint motion to place an appeal in abeyance pending settlement discussions. No big deal, right? Why publish this? Well, there's a dissent by Judge Vandyke, who points out that "We heard oral argument and are now poised to render our decision." So he doesn't like the timing of the request. Many appellate courts understandably don't like the parties to try to stop the appeal once it's gone so far that the court's got a decision ready. And he doesn't like other things about this too... He writes "the government’s sudden and severe change in position looks a lot like a purely politically motivated attempt to throw the game at the last minute." And "This court is a legal institution, not a political one.  Thus it must insist that parties provide adequate legal justifications for the relief they seek, whatever their underlying political motivations may be."

See Law360's 9th Circ. Judge Slams DOJ 'About-Face' In Asylum Rule Case; Law.com has 9th Circuit Judge Chastises DOJ for ‘Abrupt About-Face’ in Case Challenging Asylum Policy

Also of note: Ethics Committee Advises on Judicial Response to Attorney Misconduct -- Committee issues formal opinion discussing judges’ ethical and statutory obligations when responding to attorney misconduct.

And on the sanctions front, don't miss this pub'd 9th Cir. opinion -- The panel held that this appeal is frivolous.  In view of its frivolous nature, and the multiple misstatements made by counsel at oral argument, by separate order the panel ordered defendants and their counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1912, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Fed. R. App. P. 38, and/or the inherent authority of this court. 

On March 11, BHBA presents a webinar titled Oral Advocacy Is Your Last Chance To Win: Learn How To Make the Most of It From People Who Know, with speakers LASC Judges Riff and Kim and retired Justice Dhanidina.