Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court ruling on Travel Ban (16 page opinion)
Supreme Court ^ | 3 hours ago

Posted on 06/26/2017 10:17:48 AM PDT by Dave346

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. 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, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c)

Accordingly, the petitions for certiorari are granted, and the stay applications are granted in part.

It is so ordered.

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

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2017 10:17:48 AM PDT by Dave346
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dave346

2 posted on 06/26/2017 10:20:11 AM PDT by Helicondelta (Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave346

It’s clear the 3 conservative justices had to throw a bone to the remaining court.

The final decision will not have such “relationship” encumbrances.


3 posted on 06/26/2017 10:22:29 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave346
SCOTUS ignored part of EO-2 2(c).

2(c) ... I therefore direct that the entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of this order, subject to the limitations, waivers, and exceptions set forth in sections 3 and 12 of this order. ...

3(c) Waivers. ...

Click on the EO 13780 link for details of the waivers. One is close family, another is work.

We'll know shortly whether Thomas' concern was prescient or paranoid.

4 posted on 06/26/2017 10:25:48 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave346

In my personal opinion I don’t believe this belonged in any court. It belonged between Congress, and President Trump.

Seems to me, (Not a legal scholar any way, shape, or form.) having this in the court only prolongs a false authority.


5 posted on 06/26/2017 10:26:55 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists Call 'em what you will, they all have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Its nice to see three of them together. I fear kennedy will go to the other side on this

Anyone know why DOJ did not ask for expedited hearing?


6 posted on 06/26/2017 10:31:04 AM PDT by RummyChick (can we switch Don,Jr for Prince Kush and his flak jacket. From Yacht Party to Warzone ready to wear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
-- Anyone know why DOJ did not ask for expedited hearing? --

Probably for the same reason they didn't appeal the 9th Circuit decision until after it was made. If SCOTUS had outright struck the orders below, there would be no urgency to be heard in court.

SCOTUS is being its usual disingenuous self when it says "hearing in October because the government didn't ask us to expedite it."

7 posted on 06/26/2017 10:35:10 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dave346
From the article......

***A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship.***

True, but they are not citizens and have no Constitutional right of entry, so I don't get the distinction.

8 posted on 06/26/2017 10:37:41 AM PDT by Malcolm Reynolds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Anyone know why DOJ did not ask for expedited hearing?

I have always guessed that this didnt really matter that much to the Trump admin, it was more of a bone to his voter. That this matter was used as a diversion from the other things they were getting done, and they knew it would win in the end, so why not let the left bite on this ankle for a little while longer.

9 posted on 06/26/2017 10:37:57 AM PDT by Paradox ("Donald Trump", the biggest Strawman ever created.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Maybe..but the timing is precarious if kennedy retires before then...


10 posted on 06/26/2017 10:41:54 AM PDT by RummyChick (can we switch Don,Jr for Prince Kush and his flak jacket. From Yacht Party to Warzone ready to wear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: onkelosII

Sadly, yes, the only reason lawsuits were filed to begin with is the left’s hatred of all things Trump.

Lawsuits to try to hobble the Trump agenda is just one of many weapons being utilized by the “Resistance”.


12 posted on 06/26/2017 10:48:34 AM PDT by Dave346
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

I don’t think this would have happened at any other time in our history. This president is fighting alone. Even people from his own party were against this ala McCain and company.

He’s doing the heavy lifting himself.


13 posted on 06/26/2017 10:48:37 AM PDT by nikos1121 (Rudy Guiuliani for Head of FBI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

Agree.

My point is the courts are now precedent where they aren’t authorized by the constitution. Having exceeded their authority now at the highest judicial level.

I could be wrong, but I worry for the future with these actions.


14 posted on 06/26/2017 10:59:37 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists Call 'em what you will, they all have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: onkelosII

did anybody sue Obama\Bush\HST\FDR ?


15 posted on 06/26/2017 11:12:11 AM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dave346
Having just read through the Supreme Court's granting of Certiorari, the justices have reversed the injunctions but left in place the 2nd Executive Order's exemptions for individual to apply for entry if there are close relationships with US persons or entities and then attempted to give guidance by defining what would be acceptable relationships for entry for individuals from the countries subject to the travel bans. In so doing, they opened the door for more litigation, especially in the two districts where the appellate courts made their rulings.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch wrote a dissent saying they should have reversed the entire injunctions, based on the same thing I said above. . . and not tried to parse the injunction, or try to define the limits of admission, as it would create more litigation from confusion about who was related to whom and what is a proper relationship for entry.

16 posted on 06/26/2017 11:22:00 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Justice Thomas has a genuine concern, and is tougher than the rest other than Alito and Gorsuch.


17 posted on 06/26/2017 11:34:12 AM PDT by BigEdLB (To Dimwitocrats: We won. You lost. Get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dave346

Yep the liberals are using courts not to win but to slow down, impede and obstruct Trump.


18 posted on 06/26/2017 11:41:23 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Why ask for an expedited hearing outside normal cycle when you get MOST of what you want?

These 3 originalist judges were able to bring unanimous agreement for a stay of the bulk of the lower courts orders. This, as they wrote, due to the likelihood the administration will prevail on the merits.

The did leave intact an exclusion that obliquely affects US citizens/legal residents and US entities...a historic recognition by the courts. They do have jurisdiction here. They seized it over 100 years ago and have never been seriously challenged since.

But that exclusion also signals they will revisit even this precept.

I hope for a ruling next year that says the courts have absolutely NO ROLE in immigration law or conduct of its enforcement.

Constitutionally, the US Congress is charged with the development of these laws and they have, by statute assigned the bulk of their authority to the Executive.

National Security is also outside the purview of the Courts...and today immigration is a National Security issue.


19 posted on 06/26/2017 11:50:02 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dave346

Article summarizing it:

Supreme Court allows limited version of Trump’s travel ban to take effect and will consider case in fall

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-limited-version-of-trumps-travel-ban-to-take-effect-will-consider-case-in-fall/2017/06/26/97afa314-573e-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.a7d3d828a42c

Considering it in the fall is ridiculous. An army of terrorists can come in between now and then.


20 posted on 06/26/2017 11:58:15 AM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson