3 ms·

> Pausing the ban during appeals seems generally reasonable. After all, the point of there being an appeal is that the case isn't actually settled yet, so leavi

> Pausing the ban during appeals seems generally reasonable. After all, the point of there being an appeal is that the case isn't actually settled yet, so leaving the status quo in place until it is seems less-harmful overall. Possibly with some kind of clawback requirement for if the appeal fails. How many levels of appeal should this apply to?

ethanbond 3y ago
As many as you are entitled to (which is not infinite)
abduhl 3y ago
Recall that Apple is appealing the decision of an agency, not a court. Staying an agency's decision until an actual court can review the agency's decision makes sense. An analogy: migrants seeking asylum in the USA should be permitted to remain in the USA until their appeals process is completed even after an immigration judge decides not to grant the asylum-seeker asylum.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Interesting example. There are plenty of other examples that go the other way, for example if someone is found guilty of a crime but is appealing it. The default rule is that you are imprisoned during appeal. This is of concern to Trump supporters right now, since the precedent is so strong that it's not clear that being a top candidate for POTUS may not be enough to warrant an exception.
  - abduhl 3y ago
    Guilty of a crime implies an actual judicial proceeding, not an administrative proceeding. Administrative proceedings occur under the powers of the executive branch alone.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  That's a terrible example. It onky holds true for actions that are irrevensible or interfere with the legal process. Capital punsihment is also not administered untill appeals are finished. Obviously you can't attend a court hearing if you have already been killed or deported.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > Obviously you can't attend a court hearing if you have already been killed or deported. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a reversion to the "remain in Mexico" policy in the coming months. This flipped the presumption on whether the applicant was going to prevail on the merits, presumably because such a small percentage do ultimately qualify. There is a growing sentiment, including in bright blue cities, that the current system, which presumes applicants will qualify for asylum, is not tenable.
mminer237 3y ago
There are only two levels of appeal in normal federal court, and the second (SCOTUS) doesn't take many cases.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  I'm aware of the levels of review (IAAL), but the point is that these two levels of appeal could completely moot the situation because of the time delay involved.
  - dharmab 3y ago
    Howso? If the plaintif wins they can be compensated by their back royalties for all the watches Apple already sold.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      Because it drastically shifts the bargaining power of the parties. The whole point of injunctions (which is what the ITC is able to order) is that they are prospective, not retrospective. If injunctions can be put on hold until all appeals are exhausted, as suggested above, that has a huge effect on the timeline on which this all plays out. Appeals take significant time, and Apple's refresh cycle is annual. Also, some plaintiff's might have a hard time paying for all of the appeals — if a large defendant can simply wait them out, without regard to wins in courts of first impression, that is a boon for deep-pocketed companies.

ethanbond 3y ago

As many as you are entitled to (which is not infinite)

abduhl 3y ago

Recall that Apple is appealing the decision of an agency, not a court. Staying an agency's decision until an actual court can review the agency's decision makes sense. An analogy: migrants seeking asylum in the USA should be permitted to remain in the USA until their appeals process is completed even after an immigration judge decides not to grant the asylum-seeker asylum.

gnicholas 3y ago
Interesting example. There are plenty of other examples that go the other way, for example if someone is found guilty of a crime but is appealing it. The default rule is that you are imprisoned during appeal. This is of concern to Trump supporters right now, since the precedent is so strong that it's not clear that being a top candidate for POTUS may not be enough to warrant an exception.
- abduhl 3y ago
  Guilty of a crime implies an actual judicial proceeding, not an administrative proceeding. Administrative proceedings occur under the powers of the executive branch alone.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
That's a terrible example. It onky holds true for actions that are irrevensible or interfere with the legal process. Capital punsihment is also not administered untill appeals are finished. Obviously you can't attend a court hearing if you have already been killed or deported.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > Obviously you can't attend a court hearing if you have already been killed or deported. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a reversion to the "remain in Mexico" policy in the coming months. This flipped the presumption on whether the applicant was going to prevail on the merits, presumably because such a small percentage do ultimately qualify. There is a growing sentiment, including in bright blue cities, that the current system, which presumes applicants will qualify for asylum, is not tenable.

mminer237 3y ago

There are only two levels of appeal in normal federal court, and the second (SCOTUS) doesn't take many cases.

gnicholas 3y ago
I'm aware of the levels of review (IAAL), but the point is that these two levels of appeal could completely moot the situation because of the time delay involved.
- dharmab 3y ago
  Howso? If the plaintif wins they can be compensated by their back royalties for all the watches Apple already sold.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Because it drastically shifts the bargaining power of the parties. The whole point of injunctions (which is what the ITC is able to order) is that they are prospective, not retrospective. If injunctions can be put on hold until all appeals are exhausted, as suggested above, that has a huge effect on the timeline on which this all plays out. Appeals take significant time, and Apple's refresh cycle is annual. Also, some plaintiff's might have a hard time paying for all of the appeals — if a large defendant can simply wait them out, without regard to wins in courts of first impression, that is a boon for deep-pocketed companies.