Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Executive Order 13771 is the infamous 2-for-1 deregulation policy aimed at reducing federal agency regulation and spending by requiring agencies to cut programs to create new ones and to cut two regulations for every one that gets implemented.
The lawsuit, which was filed early last year, has finally made it past the motion to dismiss stage with the federal district court for the District of Columbia finding that the plaintiffs do have standing to at least proceed to discovery.
One of the big issues the plaintiffs must still overcome is whether they have been subjected to an injury. The complaint asserts that certain regulations that have been delayed or indefinitely tabled have caused an increased risk of injury. Additionally, the complaint also alleges that two individuals have failed to make purchases due to some delayed consumer protection regulations.
Not So Fast Plaintiffs
Curiously, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary adjudication or partial summary judgment in response to the DOJ's motion to dismiss. While the court did not rule in the plaintiffs' favor on summary judgment, it did rule against the DOJ's motion to dismiss.
Strategically, the plaintiffs may have just been trying to get more evidence in front of the district court judge by filing an aggressive motion for partial summary judgment. However, although the court denied the plaintiffs' motion, it did invite them to try again after further fact finding has taken place.