US Supreme Court obswervers believe the ruling will rest on Justice Kennedy…..
He will could be the swing vote….
Maybe….
Soem reasoning is…..
If the court looks at the ban as a Religious test, not just a President’s action on immigration?
Things could move against the President’s action in the fibnal decision ….
The Supreme Court will close out arguments for the term on Wednesday by weighing the constitutionality of President Trump’s third attempt to block nationals from majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.
Hawaii’s state government, the Muslim Association of Hawaii and three individuals have been battling different iterations of the ban Trump contends is needed for national security for the last 15 months, arguing it’s tainted with animus towards Muslims.
Hawaii argues the latest ban unconstitutionally discriminates against Muslims and exceeds the president’s powers over immigration delegated to him by Congress.
The administration says the president has broad constitutional and statutory authority to limit immigration.
The Supreme Court initially agreed to consider Trump’s second order, which banned people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. It then dismissed that case as moot when the ban expired before the scheduled arguments.
Trump’s latest ban, issued by a presidential proclamation, swaps Sudan for Chad, and made the restrictions on travelers from the effected countries indefinite. Chad has since been dropped from the list.
The proclamation also included new restrictions on nationals from North Korea and government officials from Venezuela, but those provisions are not being challenged in this case.
In December, a majority of justices agreed to allow the president’s full ban to take effect, temporarily blocking a Ninth Circuit Court order that kept the administration from banning the entry of foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationships with a person or entity in the U.S.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were the only justices that publicly said that they would not have let the ban go into effect…..
jamesb says
April 25, 2018 at 2:51 pmUpdate….
While we don’t know how this will go….
Court watchers are leaning towards the Supreme’s backing a President’s right to issue travel bans based on their job of handling Foreign Policy and protecting the country gainst threats….
The oral arguments from the Justices do NOT appear to focus on the religios implications in Trump’s actions…
Trump’s Government lawyers are also try to do a end run around the actions of Federal judges and courts that have stop a President from certain actions nationally….
More…
Oh and unlike their client?
Trump’s travel ban lawyers have nice things to say about Muslims….
Image that?
jamesb says
April 27, 2018 at 9:43 amPolitico gives a more 50/50 view of the courts possible ruling that will rest on Justice Kennedy’s shoulders …
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
The Supreme Court seemed divided on whether President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban violates federal law or the Constitution when the legal battle over the issue reached the high court Wednesday, nearly 15 months after the policy’s first iteration kicked in and sparked angry protests at international airports across America.
The oral argument session offered no clear indication of how the court will rule. Frequent swing Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to struggle with aspects of the case. He expressed concerns about second-guessing the president’s response to national security threats but also seemed wary of declaring that a president’s statements on the campaign trail can’t be used to assess his actions….
More…
jamesb says
May 2, 2018 at 11:57 amAn appeals court in New York has reinstated a lawsuit by three men who say they were put on a nationwide “No Fly List” because they refused to be informants.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan restored the lawsuit Wednesday.
A lower-court judge had dismissed their lawsuit against 25 named and unnamed federal law enforcement officers. The 2013 lawsuit filed by Muslim men in New York and Connecticut had sought unspecified damages after they were put on the list for individuals deemed a threat to airline safety.
The appeals panel said the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits individuals to recover money damages against federal officers sued in their individual capacities for violating sincerely held religious beliefs.
Government lawyers had no immediate comment….
AP News….