WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Trump's immigration travel ban against six majority-Muslim countries can take full effect while legal challenges against the latest version are still tied up in courts.

The ruling means all travelers from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad with "bona fide" connections to the United States cannot enter the United States while the cases proceed.

The decision eliminates restrictions imposed by federal courts based in California and Maryland that were similar to those designed by the Supreme Court in June. At that time, the justices allowed only part of an earlier, temporary travel ban to be implemented.

The unsigned order from the court was opposed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

The battle over the travel ban dates to the first week of the Trump administration and has involved different countries, restrictions and exemptions.

After losing in nearly all federal district and appeals courts through the winter and spring, the administration won the Supreme Court's partial support in June. The justices said travelers from six predominantly Muslim nations -- a group that included Sudan but not Chad at the time -- could be banned if they lacked a direct connection to people or institutions in the U.S.

That ban expired in September, however, when the administration completed its worldwide review of screening procedures used by foreign governments and announced its new, more permanent policy by proclamation. The Supreme Court dismissed the pending challenge to the earlier ban.

But before the third one could go into effect, it was blocked by the same district court judges in Hawaii and Maryland who struck down the prior version.

Those judges cited different reasons for their decisions. In Hawaii, Judge Derrick Watson said the latest ban illegally targeted people based on nationality. In Maryland, Judge Theodore Chuang said it unconstitutionally singled out individuals based on their Muslim religion.

The administration claims in its latest Supreme Court filings that the new travel ban is the result of its "comprehensive" global review and should therefore withstand challenges the prior versions did not.

"The proclamation amply justifies the president’s finding that the national interest warrants the exclusion of certain foreign nationals, and conclusively rebuts respondents’ claims that the entry restrictions were motivated by animus rather than protecting national security," the Justice Department said in its latest brief Thursday.

Opponents -- the state of Hawaii and the International Refugee Assistance Project -- say the government's motives remain the same, citing President Trump's statements during the presidential campaign and his tweets and comments this year.

"The president’s third travel ban, like his first and his second, is irreconcilable with the immigration laws and the Constitution," Hawaii's latest brief said. "It continues the same policy of excluding Muslims that multiple courts previously held unconstitutional."

Trump fanned the flames against Islamist terrorism again last week by retweeting three videos from a British ultra-nationalist group depicting Muslim violence. The tweets touched off a war of words with British leaders, some of whom urged that the president's planned State visit should be called off.

Link

Suck it, libs.

I'm not tired of winning yet!!!

Thanks for posting this Jallen.

bout fuckin time. Goddamn weenie liberal judges that stopped it originally need to be taken off the bench.

Any first year law student could have figured this out. Even two of the liberal justices had to agree.

they at least need to be reprimanded, have their judgeships rescinded and be sent to a disciplinary hearing on being able to tell the difference between the Constitution and legal doctrine versus political activism on the bench.

At the very least, send them all bills for the crap they've caused by being stupid

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
they at least need to be reprimanded, have their judgeships rescinded and be sent to a disciplinary hearing on being able to tell the difference between the Constitution and legal doctrine versus political activism on the bench.

At the very least, send them all bills for the crap they've caused by being stupid

Hold them criminally accountable for any crimes committed by immigrants let in due to their asinine decisions.

Winning!

MAGA-

-------------------------------

Re: "Opponents -- the state of Hawaii and the International Refugee Assistance Project -- say the government's motives remain the same, citing President Trump's statements during the presidential campaign and his tweets and comments this year."

What the hell does the government's motives have to do with it? It's what the law says that matters – not someone's guess about the motivation behind it.

Not much is at stake here.

quote:

ORDER IN PENDING CASE
17A560

TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. INT’L REFUGEE ASSISTANCE, ET AL.

The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted, and the District Court’s October 17, 2017 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought.

If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.

In light of its decision to consider the case on an expedited basis, we expect that the Court of Appeals will render its decision with appropriate dispatch.

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.

This just unstays the stay while the case works its way to the Supremes, if it does. Meantime, the travel ban can be enforced. There can be a decision either way, and it might not be reviewed by the Court.

There is an identical order in the 9th Circuit case, just in case you’re worrying.

from

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ravel-ban-orders.php

When a court addresses requests for preliminary relief like those at issue here, a key issue is the court’s assessment of which party is likely to ultimately prevail on the merits.

The Court’s two orders today strongly suggest that a solid majority of the Court thinks the president’s travel ban order will prove to be valid and enforceable.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
from

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ravel-ban-orders.php

When a court addresses requests for preliminary relief like those at issue here, a key issue is the court’s assessment of which party is likely to ultimately prevail on the merits.

The Court’s two orders today strongly suggest that a solid majority of the Court thinks the president’s travel ban order will prove to be valid and enforceable.

Or the practical effect of keeping people out pendite lite is better than risking letting in hordes who will never be removed.

Expeditious handling at the appellate level shouldn’t take very long.

quote:

The unsigned order from the court was opposed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Well, no surprise there! Remember how those 2 got there!

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:


The ruling means all travelers from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad with "bona fide" connections to the United States cannot enter the United States while the cases proceed.

I’d like to find those activist judges that kept blocking this travel ban and beat them with a granite slab engraved with the order.

I thought I heard a big rig blow a tire on the freeway...now I know it was the neighborhood token liberal's head explode

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
I’d like to find those activist judges that kept blocking this travel ban and beat them with a granite slab engraved with the order.

Not just yet. Both cases are on appeal at the 9th and 4th circuits. When those are decided, expeditiously, both will no doubt file petitions for a writ of certiorari to be heard by the Supreme Court, and dare I say it, both will be granted, no matter what the decision in each case is, both one way or one each way.

In the meantime, the travel ban order remains in effect.

I heard Donald only has a 1.6% chance of winning the election. I sure hope that's wrong...