Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order

[Soumitra]

Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order

In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments as early as this fall.

The court's decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- the president's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban."

Related Image

Expand / Collapse
Protesters opposed to President Trump's travel ban wave signs during a demonstration. (AP)

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security," Trump said in a statement. "...As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive."

He added: "My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland."

The court made clear that a limited version of the policy can be enforced immediately with a full hearing to come in the Fall.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

The justices decided to review the broader constitutional issues over executive authority on immigration with oral arguments to be held in the fall.

Related Image

Expand / Collapse
President Trump signs an executive order restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. (Reuters)

Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.

He added on Feb. 11: "Our legal system is broken!"

In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order -- which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.

Related Image

Expand / Collapse
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was nominated on Jan. 31 by President Trump. (AP)

Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.

Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died. Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim an even more definitive victory after arguments.

“The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the judgments below will be reversed,” wrote Justice Thomas, supported by Alito and Gorsuch. “The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.’”

At issue is whether the temporary ban violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law.

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent weeks have ruled against the administration. A majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited then-candidate Trump's campaign statements proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."

Related Image

Expand / Collapse
Demonstrators in favor of President Trump's travel ban counter-protest against those opposed to the executive order. (AP)

The White House, on the other hand, frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security. A coalition of groups in opposition call the order blatant religious discrimination, since the six countries involved have mostly-Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

A major sticking point for the justices will be navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents dating back to Jimmy Carter have used their discretion to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats -- including those from nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

A 1952 federal law -- the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence -- historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary," Section 212 (f) of the law states, "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

In his opinion, Thomas criticized the majority for the compromise nature of Monday's ruling, indicating he would have allowed the order to be enforced in full. Thomas said he feared "the Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.

"Today’s compromise 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. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-trump-appeal-travel-ban-block.html

 

[LeGenD]

Now where are those who were making fun of Donald Trump on this matter?

Somebody wisely stated:

First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

'So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause' -- Some dialog I heard long back in some english movie.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

Now where are those who were making fun of Donald Trump on this matter?

Somebody wisely stated:

First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win

Pretty much how Trumps campaign went.

 

[VCheng]

Pretty smart of SCOTUS, if you ask me:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/shrewd-justice

Shrewd justiceThe Supreme Court’s curious compromise on the travel ban
The ruling for the president is a classic John Roberts exercise in conflict management

Democracy in America
Jun 26th 2017
by S.M. | NEW YORK

JOHN ROBERTS, the chief justice, frequently warns against the perceived politicisation of the courts. In April he said there is a “real danger” that the public will misconstrue “partisan hostility” surrounding Congress and the White House as influencing “nonpartisan activity of the judicial branch”. So when a political hot potato arrives on the chief justice’s doorstep, we should expect him to do all he can to cool it down. That is no mean task when it comes to Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries. The legal and political battle over the president's travel restrictions—beginning with his ill-fated order on January 27th and continuing with the revised policy on March 6th—has raged for five months. When the nation’s highest court waded into the controversy on June 26th, it appeared to give the Trump administration a rather thorough win. In fact, the endorsement of the president’s travel policy is partial and temporary, and the anodyne, unsigned 13-page order may be all the Supreme Court ever has to say about it.

The “per curiam” (by the court) missive did two things. First, it noted that the justices have agreed to hear Trump v State of Hawaii and Trump v International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) in a consolidated oral argument “during the first session of October Term 2017”, which begins on October 2nd. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court does not commit to a hearing timeframe when it grants a case; it was responding to Mr Trump’s request for expedited review. Second, the order partially lifted injunctions lower federal courts had imposed on Mr Trump’s executive order. Until the justices have a chance to fully vet it, the travel ban may go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. But the justices “leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place” for individuals who can claim a direct connection with people or organisations in America. The upshot? Foreign students admitted to the University of Hawaii and a plaintiff’s mother-in-law living in Syria may not be blocked from entering the country. Nor may the Iranian wife of a plaintiff in Trump v IRAP. And anyone else “similarly situated”—that is, who has relatives or business to do in America—may not be stopped at the border.

For everybody else, though, Mr Trump’s travel ban may take effect. People living in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen who have no “bona fide” link to America should not plan on traveling there for the next three months. Why? “[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien...has no constitutional right of entry to this country”, the justices wrote, and “whatever burdens may result from enforcement” of the entry ban ”against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below”. People with a reprieve from the ban include “a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience”, but not someone who “enters into a relationship simply to avoid” the restrictions—such as foreigners who rush to get themselves added to a client list of an American nonprofit organisation like IRAP.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote separately to say they would have revived Mr Trump’s travel ban in full. The “compromise 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”, they wrote, and will invite “a flood of litigation”. And, Justice Thomas added, the very judges that blocked Mr Trump’s travel ban would probably be the ones considering whether a potential traveler has a “bona fide” reason for being excused from it.

There are two key takeaways here. First, the court said, 6-3, that the freeze on Mr Trump’s travel ban should not be lifted entirely. This means that a solid majority of the justices—the four liberals plus the chief justice and Anthony Kennedy—believe there is at least a decent case to be made that the executive order is illegal when applied to foreign nationals with some tie to people or organisations in America. We don’t know the legal grounds on which these six justices find the travel ban potentially flawed—it could be the First Amendment’s ban on religious discrimination (as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held), limits to a president’s power to control immigration under the Immigration and Naturalisation Act (as the Ninth Circuit held), or something else. But if there was no plausible legal basis for lifting the ban on these individuals, the court would have given Mr Trump a freer hand to stop them.

Second, the timetable suggested by the Supreme Court means that the October hearing may never happen. Here’s why. If the travel ban goes into (partial) effect in three days, as specified by Mr Trump’s clarification on June 14th, it will run its course in 90 days, expiring on September 27th, 2017. That’s five days before the justices take their seats for their next term. There is no need to judge the legality or constitutionality of a ban that has expired. Why did the justices fail to note this oddity? Perhaps because it is not their job to implement the executive order, and they opted not to presume that Mr Trump will put it into effect when he said he would. But there’s another possibility: the administration gave them an opportunity to avoid addressing the ban more quickly, and they took it. Look at this parenthetical from today’s order: “(The Government has not requested that we expedite consideration of the merits to a greater extent.)” The implication is clear: we could have held a special hearing in July—an unusual but not unprecedented move—but nobody asked us to.

So, despite granting Mr Trump’s plea to hear his case and largely lifting the lower-court stays on the travel ban, Chief Justice John Roberts apparently worked out an ingenious compromise with his liberal brethren and the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, that injects the Supreme Court only minimally into a big question on the scope of executive power in the Trump era. The chief justice has avoided making politically volatile judicial pronouncements on presidential immigration powers, anti-Muslim bias and the justiciability of tweets, and has positioned himself somewhere to the left of the court’s new conservative triumvirate.

 

[maximuswarrior]

More controversy in Trumpland.

 

[cloud4000]

'So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause' -- Some dialog I heard long back in some english movie.

Has someone appointed Trump emperor of the American empire? No. Don't be ridiculous. Obama engaged in the same behavior Trump is being pilloried for. It's about powers that are reserved to the Executive Branch by the US Constitution.

 

[LeGenD]

More controversy in Trumpland.

Not hard to say another campaign promise fulfilled.

Every state has the right to define its visa and immigration policies. Trump's position is to establish an effective vetting system for immigrants* and American people have given him mandate for this matter and others (by making him POTUS). Lesser courts do not have the mandate to show utter disregard of concerns of Americans and democratic principles.

Supreme Court has made a sound judgement on this matter by accommodating concerns of American people and other factors. Win-Win decision.

Problems with immigrants begin [after] they are let through in large numbers and without any stringent vetting measures. Look at the situation in Germany: https://sputniknews.com/europe/201612051048177290-germany-asylum-centers-sex-crimes/

Pakistani want Afghans to go back because of their bad behavior and crimes as well. So why we judging Americans for their concerns?

IMO, UN should establish shelters for refugees in different regions, fulfill their needs and look at the prospects of how to resettle them. This strategy would address lot of problems concerning refugees.

*To let right people through.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Not to hard to say another campaign promise fulfilled.

Every state has the right to define its visa and immigration policies. Trump's position is to establish an effective vetting system for immigrants* and American people have given him mandate for this matter and others (by making him POTUS). Lesser courts do not have the mandate to show utter disregard of concerns of Americans and democratic principles.

Problems with immigrants begin [after] they are let through in large numbers and without any stringent vetting measures. Look at the situation in Germany: https://sputniknews.com/europe/201612051048177290-germany-asylum-centers-sex-crimes/

Pakistani want Afghans to go back because of their bad behavior and crimes as well. So why we judging Americans for their concerns?

IMO, UN should establish shelters for refugees in different regions, fulfill their needs and look at the prospects of how to resettle them. This strategy would address lot of problems concerning refugees.

LOL I hope Trump keeps going. I do have to say that I'm a little disappointed in his ban. From banning all Muslims to just a handful of countries?

Trump causes 'major' shift in global view of US: Pew

 

[LeGenD]

LOL I hope Trump keeps going.

Trump causes 'major' shift in global view of US: Pew

That survey doesn't tell much. Every now and then, mainstream media creates a sensational story with such useless polls.

I'll pass.

 

[maximuswarrior]

That survey doesn't tell much. Every now and then, mainstream media creates a sensational story with such useless polls.

I'll pass.

You don't even need a survey to establish Trumpland's popularity. All you need is eyes and ears. That is if they function properly. Very disappointing ban though. Might please a few, but far from the promises made during the elections. This is a selective and not a total ban.

 

[LeGenD]

You don't even need a survey to establish Trumpland's popularity. All you need is eyes and ears. That is if they function properly. Very disappointing ban though. Might please a few, but far from the promises made during the elections. This is a selective and not a total ban.

Bro,

Things are not as bad as mainstream media wants you to believe. People are migrating to US as we speak - even from Pakistan. One of my colleagues migrated to US about 2 months back.

Donald Trump is very popular in the US since he is openly challenging the forces of status-quo in his country - forces that have failed to address various concerns of American people and were too busy in (global) politics. American people are simply fed-up of all the bullshit Democrats have sold to them since the tenure of Barack Obama. On top of this, Hillary Clinton was not a good candidate - she is deeply unpopular in scores of states across the US (she is called "crooked" for a reason). Trump's problem is that he is loudmouth and some media sources take advantage of his tweeting. However, they haven't fooled people as Democrats suffered defeat in each state in recent special elections.

You can see similar situation in Pakistan with Imran Khan contending with the forces of status-quo but with limited success insofar. Now, many speak ill of Imran Khan as well (outside mainstream media) but this doesn't make him an unpopular leader.

Indeed as you pointed: All you need is eyes and ears to see the reality. That is if they function properly.

Now, this would be a very lengthy debate so I will cut it short and advice you to look at things beyond the [superficial] lens of mainstream media. You will see the bigger picture then.

As a long-time professional myself and with ample exposure to politics in state institutions - I know how stupid and biased mainstream anchors can be. People should not trust them blindly.

---

No - it is not a disappointing decision. You cannot satisfy everybody in this world. There is always 'pros and cons' in dealings of mankind.

Supreme Court took all arguments into account and made a sound judgement! Win-Win move.

 

[Nilgiri]

Another slap on the faces of the lower court "judges".... 9th circuit overturn rate steadily progresses on its march to 100%.

""The justices essentially 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. ... 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."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-20170626-story.html

A friend of mine disagrees it was a slap tho :

This wasn't as much a slap at political judging as it was usurpation of national authority. Only SCOTUS and the DC Circuit have the power to effect the entire country, because they're the final court, or the court where administrative HQs are located. These judges claimed authority over the whole US, not just the sole plaintiff or district in front of them, and that was a red flag to the Supremes.