Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Partially Revives Travel Ban, Will Hear Appeal (bloomberg.com)
From a report: The U.S. Supreme Court partially revived President Donald Trump's travel ban and said the justices will hear arguments in the fall. The justices said the ban can apply for now only to people who don't have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." From a NYT report: Mr. Trump's revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation's refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government's screening and vetting procedures. [...] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, recently blocked both the limits on travel and the suspension of the refugee program. It ruled on statutory rather than constitutional grounds, saying Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority granted him by Congress. The court agreed to review both cases, and said it would hear arguments in October, noting that the government had not asked it to act faster.
Want an idea what the ruling will be? Look at any previous SCOTUS ruling on the Executive power to control the boarders. Hint, they have always sided with the Executive.
You'll rarely see a clearer statute anywhere:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
8 USC Sec 1182(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
And even if he did say these things after becoming President, it still creates the ridiculous situation where the order is Constitutional if he kept his mouth shut, but later, after having expressed those opinion, it would suddenly be Unconstitutional.
The mindset of the executive has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the order. the actually LANGUAGE of the order is what must be judged.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
INAL But intent does actually have a legal weight. This is actually well documented. You should have been aware of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
Yes this is a reference to the legislative branch, however, there are cross implications.