Posted on 06/26/2017 7:35:43 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Start crowin’ Rooster!
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/live-blog-orders-opinions-10/
Live SCOTUS Blog
Wasn’t the travel ban supposed to have expired at a certain date? Does the lifting of the injunction substantially mean anything?
Share
Discussions1
Likes0
RDHannah
Edith Roberts
The president revised the effective order so the ban doesn’t go into effect until shortly after the stay is lifted, so it has not expired.
Jun 26 2017 10:37 AM
a minute ago
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.
Share
Discussions
Likes0
Amy Howe
3 minutes ago
To the extent that anything can be read into it, what can be read into the decision to reargue Jennings and Dimaya?
Share
Discussions1
Likes2
Hey Mickey!
Amy Howe
It almost certainly means that they were deadlocked 4-4, and Gorsuch gets to break the tie.
Jun 26 2017 10:34 AM
3 minutes ago
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.
Share
Discussions
Likes10
Amy Howe
4 minutes ago
Can someone please explain what the Court’s action on the travel ban means today?
Share
Discussions1
Likes19
Albert Hodges
Edith Roberts
It means the ban can be enforced except with respect to the plaintiffs and people who have a “bona fide” relationship with the United States until the court can hear argument on the cases in October.
Jun 26 2017 10:34 AM
4 minutes ago
“We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated.”
Share
Discussions
Likes2
Amy Howe
5 minutes ago
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.”
Not sick of winning yet.
Now waiting for the rumored retirement of Kennedy.
Starts in 72 hours.
Shove it Washington State. Shove it Hawaii. Shove it Ninth Circuit.
This is important! Keeping savages out of our country is essential!
Wow
Yuge. Bigly yuge.
PAY WALL
HISS SPIT LA TIMES
BOOM!
MAGA!
You need only look to Sweded to see how islam is a cancer that eats is hosts.
MAGA!
You need only look to Sweden to see how islam is a cancer that eats is hosts.
It’s astonishing that it had to get to SCOTUS in order to get the correct ruling. It is those activist lower court judges who are the real threat to our freedom and safety.
How is this not a moot matter?
It was a 90 day temporary ban until the administration “fixed” the vetting process.
Effectively will ban no one. Any entity in this country can personally invite any numbers refugees say as employees, speakers, gardeners, cleaners, etc. Poof! Now they’re not banned.
Big Win.
What part of “not a citizen” is hard to understand?
A person who is NOT A USA CITIZEN is not automatically allowed in the USA. We get to decide who comes into this country ... for whatever reason. We can decide, if we want, not to let red haired people into the country. Our decision and ours alone. It doesn’t have to make sense, it doesn’t have to be “fair” or anything else.
Regardless of perceived risks or whatever, just on principle alone we should make this point clear. Our county, we make the rules. Period.
If there is no difference between a citizen and a non-citizen, then you don’t have a country.
Now that’s a STRUT!!
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.