Supreme Court lifts restrictions on Trump travel ban

[Jtbrig7390]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ump-travel-ban

The Supreme Court agreed late Tuesday to lift restrictions on President Trump's travel ban until further notice, allowing the administration to continue barring most refugees under the ban.

The court granted the government's request to block a federal appeals court ruling that said the administration cannot ban refugees who have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary stay on Monday pending a response from the state of Hawaii, which was due by noon on Tuesday. Late in the day, the court issued a one-page order blocking the decision indefinitely.

It takes a vote of five justices to grant a stay application.

The state of Hawaii is suing the Trump administration over the travel ban, which bars citizens from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. and temporarily halts the country's refugee resettlement program. Hawaii urged the court to uphold the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and continue to allow refugees into the U.S.

“Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the Government has pointed to in the past,” the state’s attorney Neal Katyal argued in court documents.

“By the Government’s own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they represent a security threat.”

Two federal appeals courts blocked key parts of the ban earlier this year, and the Supreme Court said in June that it would hear appeals from those decisions. At that time, the court also allowed the government to enforce the ban for people without a "bonafide" relationship with a person in the U.S.

But what relationships were considered bonafide became the subject of intense debate. The Trump administration allowed only some relatives of U.S. residents to enter the U.S., while excluding others, such as grandparents, aunts and uncles.

In its opinion last week, the 9th Circuit blocked the government from denying entry to grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members of a person in the U.S., but Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said the administration had decided not to fight the “close-family aspect of the district court’s modified injunction.”

Wall said in his request to the court that that part of the ruling was “less stark” than the nullification of the order’s refugee provision.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that have been consolidated challenging the travel ban on Oct. 10.

[MAGAmobile]

So they're going to hear the cases on October 10th, but are still blocking the appeals of the 9th circuit for now? That seems.. rather pointless.

[PC2]

Banning travel is too vague. The US can ban migration from hostile countries, but once an individual has already been given citizenship or specific "assurances" they gain national entitlements that they didn't have before.

I think it made sense for Trump to make an early move that he can point to that shows he is trying to improve national security and lower the risk of terrorism. Not every idea works out great once it's written as policy.

[Mormolyce]

Title is rather misleading, the SC hasn't heard this case yet, they're just blocking lower courts from further eroding this shell of a law before they do.

Banning travel is too vague. The US can ban migration from hostile countries, but once an individual has already been given citizenship or specific "assurances" they gain national entitlements that they didn't have before.

I think it made sense for Trump to make an early move that he can point to that shows he is trying to improve national security and lower the risk of terrorism. Not every idea works out great once it's written as policy.

You're not getting anything stronger than this. The expanded definition of "bona fide relationship" empties it of meaning (not my words - that's what the Justice Department said in its filing). So basically, this is a Muslim ban minus the "Muslim" part, aimed at the wrong countries for political reasons, and then watered down to meaninglessness. It's intended to check a box and get racist dicks hard, not actually accomplish anything.

[Machismo]

Even according to the administration, the ban should already be over. I guess we can add it to the pile of lies they were pushing.

[Xeones]

Banning travel is too vague. The US can ban migration from hostile countries, but once an individual has already been given citizenship or specific "assurances" they gain national entitlements that they didn't have before.

I think it made sense for Trump to make an early move that he can point to that shows he is trying to improve national security and lower the risk of terrorism. Not every idea works out great once it's written as policy.

Eh? You seem to be mistaken. This was just an offering to his white nationalist base.

[Elba]

So... bomb and destabilize countries and then refuse the refugees you created.

[zenkai]

So... bomb and destabilize countries and then refuse the refugees you created.

If China bombed the US would you seek to be a refugee in China? Your logic is amazing.

[Belize]

Imagine the TRILLIONS illegal refugee terrorists that got in to the U.S. thanks to those fake liberal courts.

Oh wait. This was never an actual issue.

[FlatBootyJudy]

Hahaha take that crooked judges!

[Zomis]

SCOTUS is awesome!

[Stormdash]

The Court shot down the 9th's injunction because the 9th incorrectly applied the standard to have granted it in the first place... because it is, after all, the 9th Circuit Court of Reversals (highest reversal rate of any Circuit).

[Brubear]

The Court shot down the 9th's injunction because the 9th incorrectly applied the standard to have granted it in the first place... because it is, after all, the 9th Circuit Court of Reversals (highest reversal rate of any Circuit).

Except for it's not.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/...thcheckdam.pdf

http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-...st-overturned/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...ourt-country-/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...cord-close-80/

[Perkunas]

SCOTUS is awesome!

No, it's filled with partisan assholes on both sides who care more about scoring points for their political side than they do the constitution or the law.

[Mormolyce]

If China bombed the US would you seek to be a refugee in China? Your logic is amazing.

Which of the countries in the list "bombed the US"?

Oh wait, not only did the list omit Saudi Arabia, homeland of the majority of the 9/11 bombers and Osama bin Laden, it also left off... every country of origin of a terrorist attacker in the US in the last 20 years.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's filled with partisan assholes on both sides who care more about scoring points for their political side than they do the constitution or the law.

Funny thing is, they can actually be impeached for partisan conduct. But nobody does that anymore.

Probably because their afraid of THEIR partisan stooges getting impeached when the wind changes.

[Blur4stuff]

At this point it just all makes no sense. It was suppose to be a 90 day ban so they could make screening "better". They've had more than 90 days by now.

So either they were full of shit and just want to score points with their base or they have no idea what they're doing.

[Kiri]

At this point it just all makes no sense. It was suppose to be a 90 day ban so they could make screening "better". They've had more than 90 days by now.

So either they were full of shit and just want to score points with their base or they have no idea what they're doing.

Pretty sure they just wanted it in place and then continuously expand it with 'we need more time'. The very fact that they still need it half a year later makes that more than apparent. They have no clue how to make the screening better, so they just hope they can ban forever.

[Kujako]

At last we're safe from the... um... wait, what was this supposed to protect us from?

[satimy]

No, it's filled with partisan assholes on both sides who care more about scoring points for their political side than they do the constitution or the law.

Uhh it's way less worse than the 9th circuit. The 9th circuit is an embarrassment