Constitutional and statutory primacy of the Executive and Legislative branches
over National Security and Immigration have been restored!...for now....
Trump Wins Again! He promised we were going to win
and he's doing so with interest!
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 ...
Bury any slick attempts to get around the bonafide requirement under a 90 day paperwork requirement.
Yes. But ultimately, President Trump will be totally vindicated, and the tide will continue to turn against far Left—and patently unconstitutional—judicial activism.
The Left knew all along that they would ultimately lose this case—badly—but since the only power they have left in the federal government is in the Judicial branch, they decided to blatantly betray their Constitutional principles, putting the partisan whims of the Democrat party ahead of the nation's security.
The Left—under the auspices of the Judicial branch—simply inflicted whatever temporary damage they could to the Trump administration in the short term. But in the long term, the blowback will hurt them severely...
I guess the distinction is that if there are problems the government has specific people to approach for information. This is not random tourists wandering around with no one living here in touch with their activities or purposes.
Because you are risking kennedy retiring in the meantime....and trump cant get another justice in before this will go to a vote
Because you are risking kennedy retiring in the meantime....and trump cant get another justice in before this will go to a vote
This is ridiculous micromanagement. The President has the power to ban travel from any country for any reason.
As usual, the SCOTUS has decided to rewrite existing law which clearly gives the POTUS the authority to regulate immigration with respect to protecting U.S. citizens from harm.
Wait until the first terror attack happens caused by a denizen of one of the 6 muslim hellholes...
That would be because you can't appeal a decision until after it is made...
Bhoom!
Constitutional and statutory primacy of the Executive and Legislative branches
over National Security and Immigration have been restored!...for now....
Trump Wins Again! He promised we were going to win
and he's doing so with interest!
How can they possibly require 16 pages to simply state that laws & orders must be adjudicated on their own merits not whatever the anther said a year before of his/her desires.
If the court followed that rule, we could throw everyone in jail who had ever allegedly expressed a desire to commit a illegal act. For any subsequent act they take there to might just as well be deemed by a dishonest court an attempt to do the same.
Starting with all those who attended the ‘women’s protest’ in DC and cheered the expressed desire to burn down the whitehouse. They did after all possess flammable materials when they passed by the Whitehorse. If it doesn’t matter that they didn’t actually try to start a fire, who is to say that they didn’t attempt to burn down the whitehouse?
Obviously the 9th circuit didn’t.
Doesn’t matter if they have the relationship or not; it isn’t the court’s choice who is let in or not, it is the president’s as authorized by both the constitution and congress. Or is the court trying to imply that the constitution is unconstitutional?
I wonder if the courts would have a vastly different opinion if they were stripped of their vast layers of security. ‘If there’s a problem, call 911’ should be the response from the people to their courts, not permitting them to surround themselves with unconstitutional searches and rings of arms denied to the people.
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.