Posted on 06/22/2017 1:32:11 PM PDT by johnk
Edited on 06/22/2017 2:09:08 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
How the hell can even the most radical judge in the land Constitutionally justify judicial review and interference on immigration policy, particularly regarding non citizens not even yet in the United States????
Yesterday, I said that we might hear from SCOTUS today. I based that on the SCOTUS conference being today. What I forgot/didn't know/didn't mention was that SCOTUS conference decisions are not announced the day the conference is held.
On Monday, we expect orders from the June 22 Conference at 9:30 a.m. and the final opinions of the term at 10 a.m.SCOTUSblog - Trump v. Hawaii (16A1191)
OK...Thanks again...
Please ping me when you hear something !
The justices did NOT act on the travel ban this morning. We don't know whether there will be anything later on. There is another conference today, so they could act on it tomorrow. And it is possible that the justices could act on the stay -- that is, the government's request to reinstate the ban -- later on today. But it is not likely that the justices will act on the government's petition to review the lower court's rulings putting the travel ban on hold.
Thank you
We have action on the travel ban. "We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part."
On travel ban: "The clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule that will permit the cases to be heard during the first session of October Term 2017."
"In addition to the issues identified in the petitions, the parties are directed to address the following questions: Whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017."
In other words, the ban stays in effect????
Only people not “banned” mother of citizen
Order is being released now
No. The oppostite. Trump's request for stay of the 4th and 9th Circuit orders was granted. I'm waiting for a report on what "in part" consists of.
No. The oppostite. Trump's request for stay of the 4th and 9th Circuit orders was granted. I'm waiting for a report on what "in part" consists of.
"We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated."So this means that the government can enforce the travel ban with regard to people who don't have a relationship to the United States, but not with regard to the named challengers or people like them -- for example, who have relatives who want to come.
No. The oppostite. Trump's request for stay of the 4th and 9th Circuit orders was granted. I'm waiting for a report on what "in part" consists of.
On the stay in part: "We grant the Government's applications to stay the injunctions" blocking the implementation of the ban "to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Section 2(c)" -- the provision suspending entry from six countries -- "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.""We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated."
So this means that the government can enforce the travel ban with regard to people who don't have a relationship to the United States, but not with regard to the named challengers or people like them -- for example, who have relatives who want to come.
Here's some more language from the travel ban decision: The court emphasizes that the travel ban affects the challengers who want their relatives to come to the US, as well as -- for example -- the students who want to attend the University of Hawaii.
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
I agree with the Court that the preliminary injunctions entered in these cases should be stayed, although I would stay them in full.
OH!!! OK...I was thinking a stay on the ban...My fault...
I took the word “stay” in a different context...I’m not too savvy on legalese...LOL
No sweat. Confusion is pretty much a given when the procedural posture is complex, and "stay" is used as an action against Trump's EO, and as an action against a court.
This is a messy decision. SCOTUS is trying to save face and cut the baby in half. Unwise, but hey, it's SCOTUS, known for being unwise.
It seems the “relationship” part of the order is pretty vague....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.