Message 991 of 992 (813327)
06-26-2017 11:24 AM
Supreme Court partially lifts Trumps travel ban injunction
In breaking news, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the legality and constitutionality of Trump's travel ban.
Supreme Court revives Trump travel ban order
|The Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his temporary bans on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no connection to the United States while agreeing to hear his appeals in the closely watched legal fight.|
The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals abroad and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry.
This is a temporary measure until the Supreme Court actually hears and rules on the case, but my understanding is that decisions about injunctions often give a sense about how a court will eventually rule.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo in title.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. – Billy Bragg
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 992 by NoNukes, posted 06-27-2017 7:08 PM|| ||Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply|
From: Central NC USA
Member Rating: 1.9
Re: Supreme Court partially lifts Trumps travel ban injunction
|but my understanding is that decisions about injunctions often give a sense about how a court will eventually rule.|
My analysis is a bit different. A preliminary injunction is supposed to be issued upon a balancing of harms coupled with the likelihood of success. It is important to note that the court upheld the portion of the ban that clearly affected folks who had a claim to due process under the constitution. I think that validates the argument that those folks do have a constitutional right to due process.
With regard to the rest of the folks for whom the 120-day delay applied to, namely folks not yet under the jurisdiction of the court and not closely related to those folks, the court questioned whether or not that provision was moot, given that the time the administration wanted to study immigration was now over and presumably the administration can implement the real plan.
Under the Supreme Court's rulling, those folks simply have to wait a relatively brief time. So for establishing the balance of harms before the Court hears the case, those folks are not suffering much harm by a brief wait until the hearing.
I think there is very little justification for crowing about the outcome as Trump is now doing. Further, the Court has not tipped its hand about what it might do. The option is open to do just about anything.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 991 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2017 11:24 AM|| ||Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply|