Thread: Supreme Court revives Trump's foreign travel ban, will hear dispute in the fall

Supreme Court revives Trump's foreign travel ban, will hear dispute in the fall

June 26, 2017
David G. Savage

The Supreme Court has given President Trump a major victory by reviving his disputed ban on foreign travelers from six Muslim-majority nations.

The justices rejected a series of lower-court orders that had blocked Trump’s policy from taking effect.

The court’s conservative justices agreed with Trump and his lawyers, who argued that the Constitution and federal immigration laws give the chief executive broad power to restrict or “suspend” the entry of foreign individuals or groups into this country.

Despite the earlier defeats, Trump had voiced confidence he would prevail once the travel ban reached the Supreme Court. His confidence was bolstered in April when his first appointee, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, was confirmed and sworn in.

The high-court decision suggests that the justices were more troubled by the bold intervention of the judges who blocked Trump’s order than by the new president’s aggressive use of his authority.

Trump’s order, first issued on Jan. 27, called for a temporary ban on travelers from several Muslim-majority nations, including Libya, Somalia and Yemen, where legal authority had broken down. That order was blocked by the courts and the administration revised it to address some of the legal concerns.

In defending both versions, the president’s advisors argued that a 90-day pause would allow the administration to devise new and stronger vetting procedures to screen travelers.

But federal district judges in Washington state, Hawaii and Maryland, acting on lawsuits, barred both orders taking effect. They cited Trump’s campaign promise to enact a “Muslim ban,” and said his order was suspect and probably unconstitutional because it reflected religious bias. Trump’s lawyers challenged those decisions, but lost in U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia and the 9th Circuit Court in California.

In appealing to the high court, acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall contended that the judges had wrongly “second guessed” the president’s determination that travelers from these six nations could threaten the nation’s security. He quoted a June 19 opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that said “national security policy is the province of the Congress and president,” adding that courts should “accord deference to what the executive branch has determined is essential to national security.”

The six countries targeted by Trump's order are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The two cases before the court were Trump vs. Hawaii and Trump vs. International Refugee Assistance Project.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...626-story.html

Travel ban revived. According to Fox News, there is an exception for anyone with a relationship to a family member, an employer or other US entity such as a University. They would still be subject to vetting and all immigration laws, but can not be banned under the travel ban.

The case will be heard in the fall with a ruling expected sometime in December.

Until then, unless tied to the US through a pre-existing family, business or educational relationship, the President can execute the travel ban.

Big win for Trump and Sessions.

Thank you US Supreme Court. Thank you very very much.

Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order

Published June 26, 2017
Fox News

Supreme Court lifts injunction on travel ban

In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments as early as this fall.

The court's decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- the president's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban." The court made clear that a limited version of the policy can be enforced for now.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

The justices decided to review the broader constitutional issues over executive authority on immigration with oral arguments to be held in the fall.

Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.

He added on Feb. 11: "Our legal system is broken!"

In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order -- which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.

Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.

Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died. Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim an even more definitive victory after arguments.

“The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the judgments below will be reversed,” wrote Justice Thomas, supported by Alito and Gorsuch. “The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.’”

At issue is whether the temporary ban violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law.

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent weeks have ruled against the administration. A majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited then-candidate Trump's campaign statements proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."

The White House, on the other hand, frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security. A coalition of groups in opposition call the order blatant religious discrimination, since the six countries involved have mostly-Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

A major sticking point for the justices will be navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents dating back to Jimmy Carter have used their discretion to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats -- including those from nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

A 1952 federal law -- the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence -- historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary," Section 212 (f) of the law states, "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

In his opinion, Thomas criticized the majority for the compromise nature of Monday's ruling, indicating he would have allowed the order to be enforced in full. Thomas said he feared "the Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.

"Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding -- on peril of contempt -- whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780.”

Fox News' Bill Mears contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ban-block.html

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

That's nonsense!

No CHAIN refugee migration.

Keep them together on THEIR soil.