Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump's lawyers make final plea to Supreme Court on travel ban, with eye toward Justice Kennedy
La Times ^ | JUNE 21, 2017, 1:54 P.M. | David Savage

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]

President Trump's lawyers made a final appeal to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in the pending dispute over his travel ban and quoted Justice Anthony Kennedy

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; ban; bordersecurity; lawsuit; scotus; supreme; travel; trump; trumpeo; trumpscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: treetopsandroofs

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????


21 posted on 06/22/2017 6:04:33 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: JBW1949
-- So, if this was heard today, have they made a decision?? --

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)
23 posted on 06/23/2017 10:03:06 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

OK...Thanks again...


24 posted on 06/23/2017 10:07:08 AM PDT by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Please ping me when you hear something !


25 posted on 06/24/2017 11:42:38 AM PDT by hoosiermama (When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949; hoosiermama
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.

SCOTUSblog - live blog - June 26, 2017

26 posted on 06/26/2017 6:42:01 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Thank you


27 posted on 06/26/2017 7:07:41 AM PDT by hoosiermama (When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949; hoosiermama
We have action on the travel ban. "We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part."

28 posted on 06/26/2017 7:25:52 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949; hoosiermama
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."

29 posted on 06/26/2017 7:28:31 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949; hoosiermama
"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."

30 posted on 06/26/2017 7:29:40 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

In other words, the ban stays in effect????


31 posted on 06/26/2017 7:32:36 AM PDT by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Only people not “banned” mother of citizen

Order is being released now


32 posted on 06/26/2017 7:34:11 AM PDT by hoosiermama (When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949
-- In other words, the ban stays in effect?? --

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.

33 posted on 06/26/2017 7:34:59 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949; hoosiermama
-- In other words, the ban stays in effect?? --

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.


34 posted on 06/26/2017 7:36:01 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949; hoosiermama
-- In other words, the ban stays in effect?? --

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.


35 posted on 06/26/2017 7:37:47 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Travel Ban Opinion

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.

36 posted on 06/26/2017 7:44:03 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

OH!!! OK...I was thinking a stay on the ban...My fault...


37 posted on 06/26/2017 7:52:07 AM PDT by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949

I took the word “stay” in a different context...I’m not too savvy on legalese...LOL


38 posted on 06/26/2017 7:55:32 AM PDT by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949
-- OK...I was thinking a stay on the ban...My fault... --

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.

39 posted on 06/26/2017 8:05:36 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

It seems the “relationship” part of the order is pretty vague....


40 posted on 06/26/2017 8:14:09 AM PDT by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson