Under the proposed schedule change, the Supreme Court would not be fully briefed in the case until June 22, the court’s last conference date for the current term. | Getty SCOTUS faces tight timeline to hear travel ban appeal this summer

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to give the Trump administration more time to explain why the high court should take up the case of the president’s embattled travel ban.

In a letter sent earlier in the day, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall proposed a change to the expected briefing schedule to allow it to formulate a response to an opinion issued Monday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.


The Justice Department's maneuver risks delaying Supreme Court consideration of the case until October, inviting administration critics to question whether the sense of urgency that inspired Trump's travel ban is shared by the lawyers who are defending it.

The new schedule directs the Trump administration to file a supplemental brief before 3 p.m. on Thursday. The respondents — the state of Hawaii and a local Muslim leader — will then have until noon on June 20 to reply. After that, the DOJ will need to file any answer by noon on June 21.

Under the new timeline, the Supreme Court will not be fully briefed in the case until just before June 22, the court’s last conference date for the current term.

In Monday's unanimous decision, a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit chose to leave in place a lower court’s injunction against the policy, which temporarily bans visas for travelers from six majority-Muslim countries and suspends the refugee resettlement program. The 9th Circuit’s move followed a decision in May by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also let stand an injunction against the travel ban.

In his letter to the Supreme Court, Wall asked for the chance to supplement the administration's filings to address the newly issued opinion in the 9th Circuit.

The district court ruling that preceded the appeal cited the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the 9th Circuit upheld the injunction on statutory grounds.

Josh Blackman, an associate professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, said he didn't expect the schedule change to alter the likelihood that the high court will take the case. “I still think it is feasible that arguments could be [scheduled] by the end of June or the beginning of July, with a resolution over the summer,” Blackman said in an email. “It doesn't make much sense to wait till the fall, though the justices do value their summer breaks.”

But it would be unusual for the court to schedule arguments over the summer, and seems likelier it would defer consideration of the case until the fall.

Trump tweeted Tuesday morning about the possibility of the Supreme Court considering the policy. “Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again,” he wrote. “Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at such a dangerous time in the history of our country. S.C.”

An attorney for the respondents opposed the requested delay in a reply letter to the court on Tuesday.

The attorney, Neal Kumar Katyal, wrote that “permitting a reply in this case would mean that there would be five total briefs addressing a single stay application."

