Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban from Muslim-Majority Countries

Brietbart ^ | 6/276/2017 | Ian MAson

[bar sin·is·ter]

The Supreme Court of the United States announced Monday that it will review the lower court injunctions blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order barring travel from six Muslim-majority countries. In a per curiam opinion, the Court announced it will consolidate the cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Fourth circuit, Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, respectively. Both courts found the executive order unenforceable as a likely violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause because the lower courts held it was motivated by an intent to disfavor Islam.

[Freedom56v2]

OK found it...

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.”

[faucetman]

Okay, I stand corrected. I was basing what I said based on the posted Breitbart article.

“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to let President Trump’s immigration travel ban go into effect for some travelers, reversing the actions of lower federal courts that had put the controversial policy completely on hold.”

So a PARTIAL correction. Not really much of a victory, for now.

“The court is allowing the ban to go into effect for foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.” The court, in an unsigned opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of six majority-Muslim on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States, which includes most of the plaintiffs in both cases.”

“.....left the travel ban against citizens of six majority-Muslim on hold ...... which includes most of the plaintiffs in both cases.”

Not exactly “WINNING” is it?

[plain talk]

Thanks. That helps.

[JBW1949]

Right...It seems before, almost anyone claiming “refugee” status could come as they wished....

[wardaddy]

Freepers

Read first

Then wax

[Principled]

...even those with “relationships” can and should undergo thorough vetting..

IMO this is a big deal. OF COURSE the terrorists know someone over here... and likely it's family.

[Mr. Mojo]

A more accurate headline would’ve been ....”SCOTUS revives parts of Trump travel ban order.”

Like you, I’m optimistic that the full ban will be reinstated in the fall.

[I want the USA back]

Good, and continue it! No more muzzies!

[bar sin·is·ter]

Love all the glass half full Freepers here.

[Amish with an attitude]

A glimmer of hope for our country.

[Hostage]

Misleading headline.

[TangledUpInBlue]

This is Temporary winning

[Alberta's Child]

Today's ruling DOES reverse the injunctions and reinstate the executive order.

In other words, the executive order stands while the Supreme Court reviews the case. In allowing this, the Supreme Court decided one or both of the following:

1. The potential public risk in keeping the injunctions in place outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs in the case.

2. The Trump administration has a likely chance of winning the case when the Supreme Court renders a decision.

[Jim W N]

This is an open-and-shut case. There is no genuine dispute of a material fact here. Art IV, Sec 4 of the Constitution is crystal clear here.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. U.S. Constitution, Art IV, Sec 4.

Way to go Trump. We love you.

[Helicondelta]

The headline is accurate.

[tumblindice]

Don't buy any green bananas Moe, Hamhead & Paco

[calenel]

What I see is that the temporary ban - 90 days, right? - is mostly back in effect until the Court can review it in October, at the earliest, at which point it will have expired, anyway. Since this is from the SCOTUS, no lower court now can do anything about it. Sounds like a de facto ruling in President Trump's favor, with the exception of those that can prove a relationship to someone already here, and I think there are precedents for that having to do with Cold War era refugee policies where left-behinds could be used against refugees that had already made it out.

Proving that a relationship exists with someone here is going to be difficult for those without documentation, which was the primary obstacle to vetting them in the first place, ergo, vetting is now 'mandatory' in this form at least.

So, instead of our country being overrun by potential terrorists at the whim of progressives in the judicial system, we now have a de facto travel ban and mandatory vetting.

That's how I'm reading this, anyway.

[mlo]

"Noticeably absent from SCOTUS opinion is any mention of Religious discrimination, Tweets, Muslim Bans ,ETC"

They haven't decided the case yet, they only revised the preliminary injunctions.

[Pravious]

Wow. Talk about trying REALLY hard to see the glass half empty.

[Sans-Culotte]

Freepers Read first Then wax

The headline states that the travel ban is reinstated. However, the article merely says they are reviewing it. Which is it?