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.

Comments

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[dwillden]

The appeals courts exceeded jurisprudence in citing his campaign speeches as some how changing the clear language of the Executive orders. What he said as a candidate during a campaign cannot be taken as indicating his intent once elected when the wording of executive orders issued is clear in it's limitations and specifics. The first ban did have a problem in the exception it provided for persecuted religious minorities from those nations made it a defacto ban on the religion from those countries.

But the second ban removed that exception, making it a blanket ban on citizens from those countries regardless of faith.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this exact issue.\

Except no, the Supreme Court has not already ruled on this exact issue. That's why they're taking the case, because they haven't ruled on it.

Haven't you read the lower court opinions, which go into great detail summarizing what the Supreme Court has ruled in the past?

The president absolutely has the authority to limit or stop any immigration, from any class of people, for literally any reason. Even if his stated reason was to explicitly block Muslims.

And that is what the President explicitly does not have the authority to do.

And that is the question before the court: is this travel ban in fact actually designed to block Muslims per se?

Re:On secession

[XxtraLarGe]

However, the USA seems so divided on whether to be a robber baron libertarian 'paradise' of God-fearing Christians or an Orwellian liberal state where everyone thinks what the state tells them is correct to think., that sometimes I think secession might be the way to go.

No need for secession. The solution is already in the Constitution, and it's called federalism. The federal government is supposed to have an extremely limited role in the governing of the country: courts, national defense & foreign affairs. That's pretty much it. Everything else can be handled by the states. Some people will say "What about regulating interstate commerce?" but what they don't realize is that the intention of the interstate commerce clause was to ensure free trade between the states, not to allow the federal government to impose onerous restrictions.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.

To me this smacks of the logic used in Hate Crimes. Someone who is killed by reason of some prohibited "hate" is just as dead as someone killed for hate that is not "prohibited".

I believe the legislation/orders should stand on their own.

The only other possible scheme would be "disparate impact". I have problems with that in general, but with respect to a travel ban, then any ban that affects any country that has any overwhelming majority of a demographic could be found to have a disparate impact.

For instance, if a ban was placed on nation for reasons of their international conduct, but that nation has a majority of Buddhists, then you could say it was an illegal ban on Buddhists as it has a disparate impact on Buddhists.