The Supreme Court’s possible ruling on Trump’s travel Ban

The Supreme Court’s possible ruling on Trump’s travel Ban

The Supreme Court has determined that it will hear two legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The executive orders Trump issued in March, among other things, temporarily bar the entry of citizens from six countries with a majority Muslim population: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Yemen.

In cases stemming from Maryland or Hawaii, lower courts blocked the application of the Ban to nationals of the six countries. According to the Supreme Court order of June 26, family members, employees, students, and other individuals with “a bona-fide relationship” with an entity or person in the United States will be permitted entry. The Supreme Court has also allowed a part of the Ban on travel to be reinstated for “foreign citizens abroad with no connection to the United States.”

The Supreme Court will review the combined cases after returning from the summer recess in October. The Supreme Court’s decision is its first encounter with a President who criticizes courts as being political. As a professor who specializes in constitutional law, law, and political science, I see four possible outcomes for the Supreme Court.

There are two ways to get rid of the travel ban.

1. In the Maryland case, U.S. citizens who were separated from their family members in six countries brought the lawsuit. The case challenges the travel restriction as an unconstitutional ‘establishment religion’ in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court in cases has stated that the Establishment Clause prohibits an official purpose of disapproving a religion …”. Because the travel restriction singles out countries with large Muslim populations, lower courts have held that a “reasonable observant would likely conclude” that the travel restriction is discriminatory against Muslims. The court relied on Trump’s statement from the campaign, which called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States.

______ Hawaii’s state university brought the second lawsuit on behalf of a United States Citizen whose Syrian mother-in-law wants to immigrate. The claim is that the president has exceeded his authority under immigration laws. The travel ban is based on a law that authorizes the president to “suspend entry of all aliens, or any class of foreigners” if his entry “would not be beneficial to the interests of United States.” Congress reformed immigration laws in 1965 in order to prohibit discrimination based on nationality when issuing visas – the documents that allow immigrants to enter the United States. The court ruled the president had not shown that entry by people from six countries would be “disadvantageous” under the law of 1952, and the 1965 travel ban discriminated based on nationality. The issue would then be left to Congress, which could either keep the law or change it.

There are two ways to stop the law from being as it is.

3. The Supreme Court is reluctant to question the president’s judgments on national security. Has been upheld in earlier challenges, even when constitutional rights were at stake. This broad language could allow vague concerns about terrorism to be sufficient. The Supreme Court acknowledged that granting reviews of these cases was an urgent goal of the highest order.

4. In the court’s order, there is another hint about how they might decide this case. The court asks that the parties inform the court whether or not the legal challenges against the travel ban became moot or meaningless when the 90-day travel ban expired, as per its original terms. This period was set aside to allow the government to review the “vetting” process for foreign nationals wishing to enter the United States. The original rationale for the travel ban is lost once the government has completed its review. The president recently shifted back to begin the 90-day countdown when the Supreme Court order takes effect. The case may be moot. Even the extended deadline will end before the October case is heard. If the point was moot, then the Supreme Court would dismiss it without deciding on the legality.

Win, lose or draw

The temptation is to label these results as “wins” or a “loss” for Trump. The back-and-forth between the courts, and the Trump administration has led to a revised ban that is significantly more narrow after a previous case overturned the initial Ban issued by the government in January. These cases have allowed many people to enter the United States legally who were previously subject to the original travel ban and the revised one.

The resolution of high stakes legal disputes is often characterized by a sometimes tense dialog between the president and courts. The government, for example, argued that courts should not have a role in determining detainee rights at Guantanamo after 9/11. The Supreme Court has issued a number of cases which prompted President Bush and Congress to review and moderate detainee policy. Justice Anthony Kennedy, on behalf of the Supreme Court , encouraged to engage in a debate with the President and Congress about the best way to protect the Nation against terrorism while preserving constitutional values.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *