Supreme Court allows parts of travel ban to go into effect. Oral arguments will be heard in the fall

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: NBC MONTANA

URL: http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/politics/ap-scotus-partially-reinstates-trump-travel-ban/564680789

by  ARIANE DE VOGUE   CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER


The Supreme Court Monday allowed parts of President Donald Trump's travel ban to go into effect and will hear oral arguments on the case this fall.

The court is allowing the ban to go into effect for foreign nationals who lack any "bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States." The court, in an unsigned opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of six majority-Muslim on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States, which includes most of the plaintiffs in both cases.

Examples of formal relationships include students accepted to US universities and an employee who has accepted a job with a company in the US, the court said.

This is the first time the high court has weighed in on the travel ban, and a partial victory for the Trump administration, which has been fighting lower court rulings blocking the ban from taking effect.

Trump himself has repeatedly criticized judges who sided against the travel ban and suggested the judicial system is against him and harming national security interests.

"The courts are slow and political!" Trump wrote in one of several tweets criticizing rulings from various federal judges this year.

"That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people," Trump tweeted earlier this month.

This is Trump's second attempt to install a travel ban.

The first executive order was issued one week into his term, and sought to bar people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.

After it was blocked by the courts, Trump tried again in March with a revised version that didn't include Iraq and was meant to clarify problems of the first order that created uncertainty about the rights of dual citizens and holders of US visas. It has been blocked by the courts on both constitutional and statutory grounds.

Trump has called his second executive order "watered down," and "politically correct."

Conservative trio would have allowed full ban

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented with Justice Samuel Alito and newly-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, saying the court didn't go far enough.

Thomas said he would have stayed the injunctions "in full," adding the government is "likely to succeed on the merits."

Thomas expressed concern with the "court's remedy" and said he fears it will "prove unworkable."

"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," he said.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Victory for Trump: SCOTUS Restores Vast Majority of Travel Ban
National Review, Jun 26, 2017, David French

Today, in a per curiam ruling, the Supreme Court restored the vast majority of the Trump administration’s temporary travel ban — including the temporary ban on refugee entry. The lower courts’ injunctions remain only in the narrowest of categories — where the person seeking entry has a “bona fide relationships with a person or entity in the United States.”

And what is a “bona fide relationship?” The court’s guidelines were strict: For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member

Notably absent from the court’s decision is any analysis of Trump’s campaign statements. Moreover, the only dissenters from the opinion (justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas) wanted the injunctions vacated in their entirety.

For now, the constitutional and statutory primacy of the executive and legislative branches over national security and immigration has been restored.

The judges in the courts below have been celebrated as heroic resistance figures. Yet now even the Supreme Court’s most liberal justices have rejected the lower courts’ overreach.

The resistance’s greatest legal victory has been gutted, and not even Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted its most extreme arguments.



 Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448960/victory-trump-scotus-restores-vast-majority-travel-ban

 :thumbsup3:    :thumbsup3:   :thumbsup3:

[Right_in_Virginia]

Here's hoping the "Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas " troika holds for a long time!   

[Right_in_Virginia]

Steven Portnoy‏Verified account @stevenportnoy
BIG HINT HERE: SCOTUS order says "the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security..."

[Emjay]

Here's hoping the "Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas " troika holds for a long time!   

Yes!!  And that Trump appoints a true conservative to replace Justice Stevens.

[rangerrebew]

Supreme Court Allows Travel Ban To Take Effect

Posted By Kevin Daley On 10:46 AM 06/26/2017 In | No Comments

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will review lower court rulings blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugee and migrant entry, and stayed injunctions barring the order’s enforcement.

The announcement is a major victory for the president, whose signature immigration policy has been stymied repeatedly by the federal courts.
 

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-allows-travel-ban-to-take-effect/

[XenaLee]

Meanwhile.... more (all?) leftists' heads are exploding. 

Starting to look like Mars Attacks around this country....and Trump is serving as the ultimate weapon.....hehehe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPgPyDBmY-k

[Right_in_Virginia]

[SirLinksALot]

It looks like not even Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg wants to take the heat for any terrorist attacks that might occur...

[XenaLee]

It looks like not even Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg wants to take the heat for any terrorist attacks that might occur...

Which... surprises the hell out of me.   But.... it's a "pleasantly" surprised. 

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: SUPREME COURT

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf


 JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO and
JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in part and dissenting
in part.

I agree with the Court that the preliminary injunctions
entered in these cases should be stayed, although I would
stay them in full. The decision whether to stay the injunctions
is committed to our discretion, ante, at 9–10, but our
discretion must be “guided by sound legal principles,”
Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The two “most critical” factors we
must consider in deciding whether to grant a stay are
“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing
that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits” and
“(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Where a party seeks a stay pending certiorari, as here, the
applicant satisfies the first factor only if it can show both
“a reasonable probability that certiorari will be granted”
and “a significant possibility that the judgment below will
be reversed.” Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital
Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1991)
(Scalia, J., in chambers). When we determine that those
critical factors are satisfied, we must “balance the equities”
by “explor[ing] the relative harms to applicant and
respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.”
Id., at 1304–1305 (internal quotation marks omitted); cf.
Nken, supra, at 435 (noting that the factors of “assessing
the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public
interest” “merge when the Government is the opposing
party”).

The Government has satisfied the standard for issuing a
stay pending certiorari. We have, of course, decided to
grant certiorari. See ante, at 8–9. And I agree with the
Court’s implicit conclusion that 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.
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.”
Ante, at 13. Finally, weighing the Government’s
interest in preserving national security against the hardships
caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry
into the country, the balance of the equities favors the
Government. I would thus grant the Government’s applications
for a stay in their entirety.

Reasonable minds may disagree on where the balance of
equities lies as between the Government and respondents
in these cases. It would have been reasonable, perhaps,
for the Court to have left the injunctions in place only as
to respondents themselves. But the Court takes the additional step
of keeping the injunctions in place with regard
to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals
abroad. No class has been certified, and neither party
asks for the scope of relief that the Court today provides.

“Injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the
defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the
plaintiffs” in the case, Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S.
682, 702 (1979) (emphasis added), because a court’s role is
“to provide relief ” only “to claimants . . . who have suffered,
or will imminently suffer, actual harm.” Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 349 (1996).

In contrast, it is the role of the “political branches” to “shape the institutions of
government in such fashion as to comply with the laws
and the Constitution.” Ibid.

Moreover, I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove
unworkable. 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. See ante, at 11–
12. 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, ante, at 11, 12. And litigation of the
factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably
be directed to the two District Courts whose
initial orders in these cases this Court has now—
unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed
as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.

[Idiot]

SOURCE: SUPREME COURT

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf


 JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO and
JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in part and dissenting
in part.

I agree with the Court that the preliminary injunctions
entered in these cases should be stayed, although I would
stay them in full. The decision whether to stay the injunctions
is committed to our discretion, ante, at 9–10, but our
discretion must be “guided by sound legal principles,”
Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The two “most critical” factors we
must consider in deciding whether to grant a stay are
“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing
that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits” and
“(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Where a party seeks a stay pending certiorari, as here, the
applicant satisfies the first factor only if it can show both
“a reasonable probability that certiorari will be granted”
and “a significant possibility that the judgment below will
be reversed.” Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital
Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1991)
(Scalia, J., in chambers). When we determine that those
critical factors are satisfied, we must “balance the equities”
by “explor[ing] the relative harms to applicant and
respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.”
Id., at 1304–1305 (internal quotation marks omitted); cf.
Nken, supra, at 435 (noting that the factors of “assessing
the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public
interest” “merge when the Government is the opposing
party”).

The Government has satisfied the standard for issuing a
stay pending certiorari. We have, of course, decided to
grant certiorari. See ante, at 8–9. And I agree with the
Court’s implicit conclusion that 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.
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.”
Ante, at 13. Finally, weighing the Government’s
interest in preserving national security against the hardships
caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry
into the country, the balance of the equities favors the
Government. I would thus grant the Government’s applications
for a stay in their entirety.

Reasonable minds may disagree on where the balance of
equities lies as between the Government and respondents
in these cases. It would have been reasonable, perhaps,
for the Court to have left the injunctions in place only as
to respondents themselves. But the Court takes the additional step
of keeping the injunctions in place with regard
to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals
abroad. No class has been certified, and neither party
asks for the scope of relief that the Court today provides.

“Injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the
defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the
plaintiffs” in the case, Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S.
682, 702 (1979) (emphasis added), because a court’s role is
“to provide relief ” only “to claimants . . . who have suffered,
or will imminently suffer, actual harm.” Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 349 (1996).

In contrast, it is the role of the “political branches” to “shape the institutions of
government in such fashion as to comply with the laws
and the Constitution.” Ibid.

Moreover, I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove
unworkable. 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. See ante, at 11–
12. 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, ante, at 11, 12. And litigation of the
factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably
be directed to the two District Courts whose
initial orders in these cases this Court has now—
unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed
as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.

Thank you Lord...that there is still a little bit of sanity left in our country.

[DiogenesLamp]

Winning. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump kept his mouth shut (relatively speaking)... and it paid off.

[DiogenesLamp]

I hate Trump.

I know. 

[Jazzhead]

Here's hoping the "Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas " troika holds for a long time!   

Or at least until the next Trump SCOTUS nominee makes it a quartet!   

[Snarknado]

Pretty good outcome and better yet, another indication of close alignment between Gorsuch and Thomas...

[truth_seeker]

Trump kept his mouth shut (relatively speaking)... and it paid off.

The TRUTH is a 9-0 decision, reinforces the law. And it means the lower courts were entirely wrong to introduce Trumps campaign or other rhetoric, into their considerations.

So by 9-0 you are totally wrong about "kept his mouth shut."

That is a entirely a construct of twisted, #nevertrumpism, wrong almost continuously and completely. You have not broken that streak.

[truth_seeker]

Yes!!  And that Trump appoints a true conservative to replace Justice Stevens.

Presumably you mean Kennedy? IOW get a full conservative, for a 1/2 conservative?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Or at least until the next Trump SCOTUS nominee makes it a quartet!   

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yes!!  And that Trump appoints a true conservative to replace Justice Stevens.

He'll appoint another true conservative  ^-^

@Emjay

[Right_in_Virginia]

[Mod2]

I know. 

@DiogenesLamp This is the second time you have completely changed someones quote. If there is a third time, you will be gone. Am I clear?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Looks like The Law has come to Town.

[txradioguy]

I know.

What you're doing isn't a sockpuppet. Not even close.

It's something even more disgusting and dishonest.

I'd say what it really is but I'd get banned from here.