SCOTUS just handed Trump a BIG win on his travel ban

Robert · Jul 19, 2017

https://personalliberty.com/scotus-just-handed-trump-big-win-travel-ban/

Well, Donald said he did a lawful act. The SC backs him up. They yanked the restrictions imposed by lower courts. A win for Donald is a win for American. Now who wants a slug of illegal aliens to creep into the USA?

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban can remain in place as challenges to the presidential measure crawl through lower courts.

Last month the nation’s top court partially lifted an injunction on Trump’s ban on people traveling to the United States from countries rife with Islamic terror and agreed to hear an appeal on lower court rulings that blocked the ban during its fall term. The decision, a win for the Trump administration, allowed the the government to begin barring people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen who cannot demonstrate that they have a reason to travel to the United States from entering the nation.

That ruling came with the stipulation that people having a “bona fide relationship” to the United States be unaffected by the ban.

The Trump Justice Department sought clarification from SCOTUS on what constitutes a “bona fide relationship,” but the court declined to elaborate.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented against the decision to avoid hammering down concise parameters for what relationships should allow entry.

Some media outlets are reading the SCOTUS move as a loss for Trump because it allows people from the ban nations to enter the U.S. by digging for American connections in their family trees.

But another portion of the Court’s Wednesday ruling is far more significant. Justices blocked a lower court’s ruling that would have opened the nation’s doors to thousands of refugees over the next several months by allowing anyone assigned to a U.S. resettlement organization to enter the country.

Thanks to the ruling, Trump can for now make good on his promise to shift U.S. immigration policy away from the open borders approach that is currently causing problems throughout Europe.

The SCOTUS decision to allow portions of the travel ban to stand also shows that lower court questions concerning its constitutionality are moot, making it very likely that SCOTUS will rule more in Trump’s favor than not when it hears arguments on the ban in October.

A ruling declaring the travel ban both constitutional and a benefit to national security would be a massive blow to presidential detractors who claim it is simply a mean-spirited display of racism and Islamophobia.

In addition, allowing Trump’s full ban to stand would throw a massive wrench in an ongoing globalist plan to flood the U.S. with refugees to further a multicultural agenda designed to reshape the U.S. identity.

More on that from Bob Livingston: Immigration has become the seminal issue of our time
Click to expand...

waltky · Jul 20, 2017

Granny glad to know...

Supreme Court says grandparents, grandkids exempted from travel ban
Thursday 20th July, 2017 - The Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump's government a fresh setback Wednesday, July 19, saying its controversial travel ban cannot be applied to grandparents and other close relatives of people living in the United States -- for now, AFP says.0

The court accepted a Hawaii federal judge's ruling last week that the Trump administration had too narrowly defined what constitutes "close family relationships" to determine exceptions to the ban on travelers from six mainly Muslim countries -- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. That left in place Judge Derrick Watson's wider definition, which includes grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and cousins of people living in the United States. But in its brief order, the court backed the Trump administration by staying the part of Watson's ruling that would have expanded exemptions to its 120-day ban on all refugees.

The order said the Supreme Court's ruling is temporary, pending a federal appeals court's review of the issues. The Supreme Court itself was partially the source of the dispute, having ruled in late June that the 90-day travel ban, aimed at better screening out potential security risks, can be broadly enforced for travelers from the six countries "who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." Days later, the government interpreted that to mean that only "close family" was exempted -- which it defined as the parents, spouses, children, sons- and daughters-in-law, siblings and step- and half-siblings of people in the United States.

Hawaii, one of several states fighting the travel ban since Trump first announced it in January, filed a court motion arguing that grandparents and grandchildren were by all measures also "close family." After Watson accepted that argument, the Justice Department appealed the issue to the Supreme Court, asking the court to make its own definition of "bona fide relationship" and "close family." In its order Wednesday, the high court refused.

Watson had also ordered the administration to exempt from its 120-day refugee ban any refugee who already has a relationship with a US resettlement agency. But the court overruled that, allowing the California-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the issue. The Trump administration issued a one-line response to the high court's ruling. "The Department of Justice looks forward to presenting its arguments to the Ninth Circuit," it said.

http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/...andparents-grandkids-exempted-from-travel-ban
Click to expand...

waltky · Sep 11, 2017

Win for Trump Travel Ban...

Supreme Court Issues Temporary Order Upholding Trump Travel Ban
September 11, 2017 | WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a temporary order allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees while the court considers challenges to the travel ban.

Justice Anthony Kennedy issued the temporary order Monday. It was expected to remain in effect while the full court takes up the matter, likely within a matter of days. Had the Supreme Court not acted, an appeals court decision lifting part of the ban on refugees would have gone into effect on Tuesday. If there further challenges to the refugee ban, Kennedy said, they should be filed to the nation's highest court by noon on Tuesday. The Trump administration made an emergency application to the Supreme Court Monday, asking for a stay on an earlier ruling by an appeals court, which effectively reinstated a 120-day ban on entry to the United States by almost all refugees. The lower court ruled last week that refugees could enter the country if a U.S.-based resettlement agency agreed to accept their cases.

The forthcoming ruling by the nine justices of the full Supreme Court could decide the fate of up to 24,000 refugees. If the decision goes against the refugees and their advocates, “We will fight it,” said Neal Katyal, a lawyer involved in defending would-be refugees and other travelers blocked from coming to the U.S. by President Trump's executive orders. In Monday's court filing, the Justice Department said the pending appellate court ruling “will disrupt the status quo and frustrate orderly implementation of the (presidential) order's refugee provisions.” Federal attorneys did not seek any immediate action Monday against a separate part of last the ruling issued last Thursday by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court said Trump's ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries should not apply to the grandparents, aunts, uncles or cousins of legal U.S. residents.

Latest twist

Court action this week marked the latest twist in the prolonged legal battle over the president's immigration policies. Just after taking office in late January, President Trump issued an executive order that would have blocked nearly all refugee arrivals. After court challenges that stymied his plan, the president issued an amended version of his order in March that barred travelers from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, a move Trump argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the federal government could exclude prospective refugees who did not have a “bona fide” relationship to people or entities in the United States, prompting litigation over the meaning of that phrase.

The sun flares in the camera lens as it rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington

Resettlement agencies argued that their commitment to provide services for specific refugees should count as a "bona fide" relationship. The Trump administration said it should not, meaning such refugees would be barred. Apart from the question of what constitutes “bona fide” relationships, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in October about whether Trump's travel ban discriminates against Muslims, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

By the numbers

As lower courts and the Supreme Court weighed in on the travel and refugee bans in recent months, the U.S. refugee program has lurched from an ambitious projection of 110,000 arrivals for the year, to just a few hundred arrivals a week. Through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, fewer than 52,000 will have entered the United States during the previous 12 months — a population close to Trump's stated desire to cap arrivals at 50,000. The administration is expected to announce in the coming weeks what the maximum number of refugee arrivals for the coming fiscal year will be.

https://www.voanews.com/a/justice-department-asks-sumpreme-court-to-uphold-refugee-ban/4024197.html
Click to expand...

waltky · Oct 25, 2017

Granny says, "Dat's right - now, make `em go back...

Supreme Court dismisses Hawaii travel ban case
24 Oct.`17 | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday formally dropped plans to hear a legal challenge brought by Hawaii against an earlier version of President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations countries and a ban on refugees, both of which have expired and been replaced with revised policies.

Trump's 120-day ban on refugees was expiring on Tuesday.

International passengers arrive at Dulles International Airport after clearing immigration and customs in Dulles, Virginia

The court on Oct. 10 disposed of the first of two travel ban cases after Trump's earlier 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from six predominantly Muslim countries expired on Sept. 24. It was a replaced with a modified, open-ended ban involving eight countries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-supreme-court-dismisses-hawaii-travel-ban-case-2017-10?r=UK&IR=T
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

SCOTUS just handed Trump a BIG win on his travel ban

Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

SCOTUS just handed Trump a BIG win on his travel ban

Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches