Published: Mon, January 22, 2018
Medicine | By Earnest Bishop

Supreme Court to rule on Trump's travel ban

Supreme Court to rule on Trump's travel ban

Besides deciding whether the travel ban violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the justices ordered both sides to brief whether the ban violates the First Amendment's establishment clause.

The case concerns Trump's third bid to make good on a campaign promise to secure the nation's borders.

Trump's ban also covered people from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela, but lower courts had already allowed those provisions to go into effect.

Pushing forward with multiple ongoing cases against the administration's decision, government attorneys urged the top court, "would only burden the courts and parties without bringing any additional clarity to those issues".

The rare move puts the justices on the spot, at a time when the fate of Dreamers is being heatedly debated in the Capitol, just across the street from the Supreme Court.

The Associated Press is reporting that the justices plan to hear arguments in April and issue a final ruling by late June.

The latest ban restricts travel from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim.

Trump cited national security concerns with his first order, which banned all refugees for 12 days, Syrian refugees indefinitely and travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen indefinitely.

Trump's First Year in Office Ends With 39 Percent Approval
The poll also found the now rated about the same as rival countries China (31 percent) and Russian Federation (27 percent). Of the 134 countries, approval ratings declined sharply in 65 of them - many of which are USA allies and partners.

"An objective observer would still conclude that EO-3's goal is the fulfillment of the president's unconstitutional promise to enact a Muslim ban", Hawaii told the justices, referencing one of Trump's campaign promises.

Noel Francisco said the court should agree to decide the case soon and issue a ruling by the summer.

Hawaii, represented by Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal, countered, "No prior president has attempted to implement a policy that so baldly exceeds the statutory limits on the President's power to exclude, or so nakedly violates Congress's bar on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas". Unless the court steps in, the government continued, the district court's order could remain in effect for months while it appeals to the 9th Circuit; if the 9th Circuit were to leave the order in place, the government emphasized, "it could continue for more than a year given the Court's calendar". The high court agreed to assess whether the bid to impose a variety of travel restrictions for nationals. The administration has taken a beating in the many challenges to its immigration initiatives, including the three iterations of the "travel ban" applicable to noncitizens from predominantly Muslim countries.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled January 9 that the administration must continue the DACA program, which provides legal status to 700,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the country as children. "This will be an important day for justice and the rule of law".

In his brief, Francisco wrote that the president has vast constitutional and statutory authority over immigration.

The latest ban was introduced on September 24 after what Francisco called an "extensive, worldwide review" to determine which foreign governments provide information required by the United States to vet those seeking entry. The latest order, they said, was infected by the same flaws as the previous one.

This Court's immediate review is warranted.

Like this: