Posted on 09/11/2017 9:51:58 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to lift restrictions on President Trump’s travel ban.
The Department of Justice on Monday asked the Supreme Court to stay the part of last week's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that barred the government from prohibiting refugees that have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program from entering the U.S.
The 9th Circuit also said in its opinion that the government could not ban grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members of a person in the U.S. from entering the country.
But in his request to the Supreme Court, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said that part of the ruling is “less stark” than the nullification of the order’s refugee provision.
“Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any freestanding connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government,” Wall wrote.
“Nor can the exclusion of an assured refugee plausibly be thought to “burden” a resettlement agency in the relevant sense.”
--This breaking news report will be updated.
Huh?
I read it three times and have never clue
Hopefully someone besides Wheeler writes the update.
It looks like Justice asked SCOTUS to lift restrictions on refugees in travel ban though, I think.
The refugee resettlement process is a federal government process backed by law. Refugee resettlement ‘agencies’ may not cut separate deals with refugees because they are bound to the federal government.
Example: A State allows certain independent agencies to administer driver education and training leading to a state driver’s license. These agencies are not allowed to license the students on their own.
The 9th Circuit is telling the Trump Administration that it must continue accepting refugee applications but the Trump Administration is saying “fine, but that doesn’t mean granting them visas”.
The resettlement agencies are not allowed to make and grant visas. In effect, the 9th Circuit is telling the Executive Branch what to do, in effect taking over executive responsibilities.
I prefer to demand Mexico allow Americans to go to Mexico and receive free hospital to birth a child. Then pay to have them go to school free.
Thanks for your post, it makes some sense now.
Beurocratic minutea
How can they keep pausing this, when the Supreme Court already struck them down?
I would like to know the answer to your question, too.
Supreme Court temporarily lifts restrictions on Trump travel ban
The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily lift restrictions on the president's travel ban.
In a one-page order signed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court temporarily blocked the part of last week's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that barred the government from prohibiting refugees that have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program from entering the U.S.
Kennedy said that part of the decision is stayed pending the receipt of a response from the state of Hawaii. That response that is due by noon on Tuesday.
The Supreme Court's decision came less than two hours after Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall filed a request for a stay.
In its opinion last week, the 9th Circuit also blocked the government from banning grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members of a person in the U.S. from entering the country.
But the administration said it decided not to fight the “close-family aspect of the district court’s modified injunction.”
Wall said in his request to the court that that part of the ruling was “less stark” than the nullification of the order’s refugee provision.
“Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any freestanding connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government,” Wall wrote.
“Nor can the exclusion of an assured refugee plausibly be thought to 'burden' a resettlement agency in the relevant sense.”
The court was forced to act fast, given that the 9th Circuit decision was set to take effect at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday.
Wall argued that allowing the 9th Circuit's ruling to go forward would force the government to “change course” on orders it began implementing on June 29 and invite “precisely the type of uncertainty and confusion that the government has worked diligently to avoid.”
The Supreme Court handed Trump a partial win in June when it allowed the administration to temporarily block people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. But the court carved out an exemption for people with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the country.
The federal district court judge in Hawaii who blocked Trump’s order in March further weakened it in July by including grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the U.S and refugees working with resettlement agencies in the definition of what constitutes a bona fide relationship.
The Trump administration's travel ban blocks travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that have been consolidated challenging the ban on Oct. 10.
--This report was updated at 2:42 p.m.
I think Jefferson would have much to say in how this government totally messed up checks and balances and the intent,and textual integrity of the Constitution.
I think you’re exactly right.
SCOTUS did give a temp stay, see my post #11.
Article is dated Sept 11th. This is old news trying to be rehashed.
I posted the article on Sept 11. :)
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.