The Supreme Court Has Agreed To Rule On Trump's Latest Travel Ban

Michele Moreno
January 20, 2018

"The courts below", Mr. Francisco wrote, "have overridden the president's judgments on sensitive matters of national security and foreign relations, and severely restricted the ability of this and future presidents to protect the nation".

This travel order is the third one issued by the Trump administration.

Lower courts have ruled parts of the policy illegal - and some of those courts have said 's campaign rhetoric and comments as president show he has "animus" toward Muslims.

The case is v. Hawaii.

"We have always known this case would ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court", said state Attorney General Doug Chin of Hawaii, which has repeatedly fought the travel bans.

The latest of those rulings came last month when the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the travel ban Trump announced in September violates federal immigration law.

In December, in a sign that the Supreme Court may be more receptive to upholding the September order, the court allowed it to go into effect as the case moved forward.

A decision could take more than a year if the court takes up the case but declines to speed up resolution of it issuing a ruling in its current term.

The justices briefly grappled in June with the second version of the travel ban.

The New York Times reported that in September previous year a United States court ruled that the ban was tainted by "religious animus (hostility)" and was not adequately justified by national security concerns.

- The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a judge's ruling blocking the administration's decision to end protections for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants.

The administration is challenging a January 9 decision by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who ruled that DACA must remain in place while the litigation is resolved. They say the travel ban has no precedent in U.

That move suggested the court's conservatives were exasperated by liberal trial judges issuing sweeping nationwide orders that rejected the president's plan.

"The immigration laws do not grant the President this power", Katyal said.

The next version, unveiled in March, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn't apply to those travelers who already had valid visas.

The "Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens outside of the United States when he deems it in the Nation's interest", Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court papers.

Other reports by Insurance News

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER