Leroy N. Soetoro
2017-06-26 18:39:14 UTC
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to allow a limited version of President
Trumps ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect
and will consider in the fall the presidents broad powers in immigration
matters in a case that raises fundamental issues of national security and
The court made an important exception: It said the ban may not be
enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona
fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
In the unsigned opinion, the court said that a foreign national who wants
to visit or live with a family member would have such a relationship, and
so would students from the designated countries Libya, Iran, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria and Yemen who were admitted to a U.S. university.
The court said it would hear the case when it reconvenes in October. But
it also indicated in the ruling that things may change dramatically by
then. It asked the parties to address whether the case would be moot by
the time it hears it; the ban is supposed to be a temporary one while the
government reviews its vetting procedures.
And the justices said they fully expect the government to be able to
conduct its review within the 90-day span the executive order proposes.
That affects the ban on travel from the six countries and a 120-day ban on
all refugees entering the United States, with the exceptions noted by the
In a statement, Trump called the ruling a clear victory for our national
Todays ruling allows me to use an important tool to protect our Nations
homeland. I also am particularly gratified that the Supreme Courts
decision was 9-0, he said.
The president said last week the ban would go into effect 72 hours after
receiving an approval from the courts.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch would
have let the ban take effect as written and objected to what they called
the courts compromise.
A partial stay will burden executive officials with the task of deciding
on peril of contempt whether individuals from the six affected nations
who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a
person or entity in this country, Thomas wrote.
Such a compromise, the justices said, will lead to a flood of litigation
over what constitutes a bona fide relationship before the overall case
is resolved after oral argument in the fall.
They added that the court has made an implicit conclusion that the
administration will prevail.
The proposed travel ban has been a major point of contention between Trump
and civil rights groups, which say it was motivated by unconstitutional
discrimination against Muslims.
Trump contends the ban is necessary to protect the nation while the
administration decides whether tougher vetting procedures and other
measures are needed. He has railed against federal judges who have blocked
Because the executive order was stopped by lower courts, travelers from
those countries have been entering the United States following normal visa
procedures. Trump first moved to implement the restrictions in January in
his first week in office.
His first executive order went into effect immediately and resulted in
chaos at airports in the United States and abroad, as travelers from the
targeted countries were either stranded or sent back to their countries.
Lawyers for challengers to the order rushed to federal courts, and the
order was stayed within days. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit eventually said the order could not be implemented, infuriating
the president, who said he would take the case to the Supreme Court.
But instead, his administration regrouped and issued a second order in
March. It added a section detailing national security concerns, removed
Iraq from the list of countries affected, deleted a section that had
targeted Syrian refugees and removed a provision that favored Christian
His lawyers told courts that the new order was written to respond to the
9th Circuits concerns. But new lawsuits were immediately filed, and
federal judges once again stopped the implementation.
A federal district judge in Maryland stopped the portion of the order
affecting travelers from the six countries; a judge in Hawaii froze that
portion and the part affecting the refugee programs.
Appeals courts on both coasts upheld those decisions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond agreed with U.S.
District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland, who sided with opponents in
finding that the ban violates the Constitution by intentionally
discriminating against Muslims.
In a 10-to-3 decision, the court noted Trumps remarks before and after
his election about implementing a ban on Muslims and said the executive
order in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and
The presidents authority, the court said, cannot go unchecked when, as
here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to
cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation, Chief Judge
Roger L. Gregory wrote.
Meanwhile, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit said Trump had not
adhered to federal law in which Congress gives the president broad power
in immigration matters.
The 9th Circuit opinion did not dwell on Trumps public comments, nor did
it declare that the president had run afoul of the Constitution because
his intent was to discriminate. Instead, the judges ruled that the travel
ban lacked a sufficient national security or other justification that
would make it legal, and that violated immigration law.
There is no finding that present vetting standards are inadequate, and no
finding that absent the improved vetting procedures there likely will be
harm to our national interests, the judges wrote. These identified
reasons do not support the conclusion that the entry of nationals from the
six designated countries would be harmful to our national interests.
They added that national security is not a ?talismanic incantation
that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power.
In both appeals courts, a minority of conservative judges had said their
colleagues were making a mistake. Judges should look only to whether the
executive orders were proper on their face, they said, without trying to
decide if the president had ulterior motives and defer to national
security decisions made by the executive branch.
The Supreme Court surely will shudder at the majoritys adoption of this
new rule that has no limits or bounds, wrote dissenting 4th Circuit Judge
Paul V. Niemeyer.
Trump thundered on Twitter after the judicial setbacks that the second
executive order was a watered down version of the first. And while his
lawyers in court described the action as a temporary pause in immigration,
and administration officials corrected reporters who called it a travel
ban, Trump did not agree.
People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I
am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN! he wrote.
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party has run out of gas.
Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for ending the disaster of the
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.
ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by its
supporters can dispute that.
Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimum
wage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can't
be funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how great
Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.