Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive travel ban

[webfact]

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive travel ban

By Lawrence Hurley

REUTERS

 

People protest U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban outside of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Seattle, Washington, U.S. May 15, 2017. REUTERS/David Ryder

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority nations after it was blocked by lower courts that found it was discriminatory.

 

The administration filed two emergency applications with the nine high court justices seeking to block two different lower court rulings that went against Trump's March 6 order barring entry for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the U.S. government implements stricter visa screening.

 

The move comes after the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge's ruling blocking the order.

 

The administration also filed a separate appeal in that case.

 

"We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism," Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement.

 

At least five votes are needed on the nine-justice court in order to grant a stay. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy - a conservative who sometimes sides with the court's four liberals - the frequent swing vote. Another of the court's conservatives, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed by Trump this year.

 

If the government's request is granted, the ban would go into effect.

 

In its 10-3 ruling, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said challengers of the ban, including refugee groups and others represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, were likely to succeed on their claim that the order violated the U.S. Constitution's bar against favouring or disfavouring a particular religion.

 

The March ban was Trump's second effort to implement travel restrictions on people from several Muslim-majority countries through an executive order. The first, issued on Jan. 27, led to chaos and protests at airports and in major U.S. cities before it was blocked by courts.

 

The second order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but it was blocked by judges before it could go into effect on March 16.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Christian Schmollinger & Shr Navaratnam)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-02

[darksidedog]

I totally disagree with the US system of appointing politically biased judges to the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land should be totally impartial to political beliefs and give its rulings based solely on interpretation of laws.

[mtls2005]

I would expect the Supreme Court to defer to the President, on terms of presidential authority and national security, if they decide to hear the case.

 

They certainly did in 1944 (Korematsu v. United States). Expecting the Supreme Court to be ahead of any curve is probably not assured (Dred Scott v. Sandford; Plessy v. Ferguson).

 

That said, the 4th Circuit is generally viewed as the most conservative in the U.S., and 10:4 is a tough hurdle.

 

 

[azAZ09]

We should remember that Trump argued that this was to be just a temporary ban (3 months, if I recall correctly) so his new team could work out a proper entry strategy to weed out the good people from the terrorists supposedly living in the countries of concern.

 

So although the courts got in Trump's way, his team has now had plenty of time to work out a proper entry strategy in any case and so if Trump was sincere in his reasons, the need for a ban is now surely redundant? He can just implement his teams's well thought out strategy and get on with his life. 

 

Or does he now need 3 months from the date that the courts agree he can have a temporary ban? 

 

Whatever the politics of the courts or your thoughts on Trump, clearly the supposed need for a temporary ban has passed?

[Fulwell53]

11 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

I would expect the Supreme Court to defer to the President, on terms of presidential authority and national security, if they decide to hear the case.

 

They certainly did in 1944 (Korematsu v. United States). Expecting the Supreme Court to be ahead of any curve is probably not assured (Dred Scott v. Sandford; Plessy v. Ferguson).

 

That said, the 4th Circuit is generally viewed as the most conservative in the U.S., and 10:4 is a tough hurdle.

 

 

More fool the supreme court if they defer to anything promulgated by that madman.

[sirineou]

I think they should consider it for 3 years seven months two weeks five days one hour and 33 minutes and then trump can ask again

 

[Andaman Al]

After Trump getting Gorsuch in to the SC it would be so cool if SCOTUS votes to support the 4th Circuit. Trump would go in to  meltdown.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Andaman Al

[Srikcir]

13 hours ago, azAZ09 said:

We should remember that Trump argued that this was to be just a temporary ban (3 months, if I recall correctly) so his new team could work out a proper entry strategy to weed out the good people from the terrorists supposedly living in the countries of concern.

Another tenant for the ban was a that state of emergency (in the political sense and not in the legal sense) existed that such immigrants represented a clear and present danger to the US until an "extreme vetting" process had been formulated by the Trump administration.

 

Yet after five months and counting such has not been the case. What continues to be the cause of extreme faith radicalism from several faiths in the US are Americans. The Trump administration has failed to prove the urgency of its Version 1.0 and 2.0 bans, an urgency not supported by the government's own intelligence agencies, to support even a temporary reinstatement. Temporary reinstatement would also, according to state attorney generals, would cause unjustified harm to people and businesses of the plaintiff states.

 

Therefore, the Supreme Court should deny temporary reinstatement and let the normal judicial process be completed.

[geriatrickid]

With the exception of Clarence Thomas, aka Clarence the Clown of the Strip Clubs, I believe that the court will apply the law and use common sense. 

[UnkleMoooose]

I hope  thatTrump gets his ban, and that it then becomes contagious and spreads to block our friends from the Religion of Peace from entering England too.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎02‎.‎06‎.‎2017 at 11:14 AM, darksidedog said:

I totally disagree with the US system of appointing politically biased judges to the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land should be totally impartial to political beliefs and give its rulings based solely on interpretation of laws.

Agreed, but that's impossible as all humans are biased.

Once AI comes in they can replace SCOTUS with a computer. That will be unbiased.

 

Re the ban, only 5 judges needed to approve it, I believe.