Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
Supreme Court allows partial enforcement of Trump travel ban
In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against the White House’s proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments in October.
The court's decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- Trump's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban."
"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 the president has been 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 the October 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,” an opinion on the ban filed by Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said. “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."
Fox News' Bill Mears contributed to this report.
In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against the White House’s proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments in October.
The court's decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- Trump's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban."
"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 the president has been 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 the October 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,” an opinion on the ban filed by Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said. “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."
Fox News' Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Killary lost and Bernie was shafted by said Clinton.
that's the only win you need to be concerned about
How ignorant can the three of you be?
Cheeto promises one thing. It fails. He makes a revision and promises something else. It fails. He makes more revisions and makes promises again. It fails. He makes even more revisions and only part of it temporarily passes.
That's like a batter getting one hit in ten at bats against a pitcher and claiming that he is "winning."
But, at the end of the game his team won and you are left scratching your head.
It is more like your football team racked up a lot of yards but committed a pile of turnovers and gave up big scores. You lost and can't figure out why.
Oprah would be tough. Black literate woman full of sob stories. Women would go for her because of the sob stories and tv show. Guilty whites, lesbos, gay dudes, and metrosexuals.
Only Hollywood women and man-woman types. Acorn would be brought out of moth-balls. New Oprah-phones. New diet, her fat-ass type-2 diabetic ass types. Scientologists. George Sore-Ass followers.
I know a few snowflakes on this board that would bust a nut to be able sit on her couch for a show.
Can't wait to hear how she is hot for her age and size.
how ignorant can you be with regard to the trend of republicans winning?? controlling executive branch, legislative branch as well as what is going on in the states...this travel ban win and the next couple of SCOTUS nominees may wake you up to the lefts losing trends...
Pearl Harbor, D-DAY, JFK assassination, 11-14-70, 9-11, and Rifle stooping to a level only Herd Fever has been.
Unforgettable moments.
The day the music died...
No. It is the all-star break, and you just had a single in your final at bat after striking out the previous nine times. But since you had success 1 out of 10 times, you claim "winning."
Yet, you still haven't accomplished anything. Look at all of the major promises- almost every single major promise has failed, been forgotten, or drastically revised to not even be the same thing.
That isn't winning. It's moving the goalposts.
I think most of us, even the lefties on this board, figured they'd hear it. I'm as curious about the outcome as I am their arguments.
it sure feels like winning. how does it feel on the left? anything like losing...or you are behind at halftime?
Just because you're old and your wife's body isn't nearly as good as Kathy Griffin's, it doesn't mean the music has died for all of us.
I was out of town for the last six nights. On my first night, I fired up Bumble and landed this one. Had her drive an hour to meet me out at a reception that I had to go to. Skipped to a bar, spent 20 minutes there, and she wanted to see my place. When we woke up, she asked if she could drive down again that night after she packed for her trip the next day.
The music is still playing for those of us who aren't forced to acknowledge that a 57 year old Kathy Griffin has a better body than what we are banging.
That's because your side has lower standards.
Having to make frequent revisions and watering down your original promises isn't winning. Going 1 for 10 isn't winning.
Obama wasn't much of a winner. By the end of his time, he was pretty much reduced to crying in a room full of coloring books just like the libs on Election Night.
"I wanted the utopia, but the Republicans in Congress wouldn't just let me have it." The thing about it is, they probably would have. He was just too chicken shit to push it. Could have had anything he wanted. Could have probably had a third term. He was just weak.
Sure as hell wasn't an Ezekiel Elliott. More like Lydell Ross.
"I wanted the utopia, but the Republicans in Congress wouldn't just let me have it." The thing about it is, they probably would have. He was just too chicken shit to push it. Could have had anything he wanted. Could have probably had a third term. He was just weak.
Sure as hell wasn't an Ezekiel Elliott. More like Lydell Ross.
I know the truth hurts when you're always wrong, but what actually happened is that a liberal activist judge took it upon himself to block this law every time Trump took the executive action that he has the constitutional authority to take. Only now are you seeing the Supreme Court start to unwind the unconstitutional moves made by the judges.
I just realized how much this is going to make David Muir squint this evening. He's not one for crying. He's got field people to do that. They'll be doing plenty of it tonight, oh my.
I'm so excited to watch it that I'll probably be late getting home because of traffic or a flat tire or somebody shooting me or some shit.
I'm so excited to watch it that I'll probably be late getting home because of traffic or a flat tire or somebody shooting me or some shit.
A liberal judge? More like multiple judges. That is because those judges - who scan the country - all identified it as being Unconstitutional. Congress not doing its job and refusing to vote on Supreme Court nominations in order to manipulate the power swing doesn't change that.
So weird how they had no issue with the ban when Obama wanted it. Oh that's right, they called it something else so it would better fit the liberal agenda.
As I have repeatedly stated, Obama's goal wasn't to ban a religion. Cheeto has made that comment in the recent past.
They had different objectives for it.
I still can't get over the tax evasion. If everybody could do that, there wouldn't be any reason for these people to come here anyway.
Yes. A liberal judge each time = judges, plural. Just like my statement read. Don't get on anybody else about reading comprehension until you master it.
Last edited:
Wrong again. You wrote " . . . a liberal activist judge took it upon himself . . . "
That could easily be interpreted as a single, liberal activist judge doing it each time. But that wasn't the case.
It wasn't an issue of me with reading comprehension. It was a poor job of writing on your case which led the words to be interpreted multiple ways.
Last edited:
Multiple judges that are over turned at an 80% rate. I get liberals don't know squat but you would think liberal judges would at least know law
Yes, "multiple judges." Let BC know that.
It's not a case about them knowing or not knowing the law. One different justice would push this issue to the other side.
Morons like you fail to understand that this isn't a black/white issue. There is quite a bit of gray. Which side of the gray the justices fall on is based on their political ideology, not what is right or wrong legally.
I said "every time" which means more than one time. And, in my last sentence, I also said 'judges', which means judges.
The inclusion of "every time" doesn't change anything. It can still be interpreted as a single judge making multiple decisions.
So, you switched back-and-forth between singular and plural. As I said, it's a case of poor writing, not poor reading comprehension.
It's ok- you're far better at spelling and writing than our president.
Pffffffft. Those guys can't even figure out the 2nd Amendment when Madison spelled it out for them in the Federalist Papers. Amiright?
