Additional details have come forth after the Supreme Court announced Monday that it will review the case on President Trump’s travel ban, reportedly sometime in October.
Lower courts had blocked Trump’s travel ban, but the Supreme Court has lifted certain elements of the block, giving the Trump administration a partial victory in the case.
Bloomberg reporter Erik Larson noted, “One question we’re still trying to answer: what happens in the time between the expiration in late September of the temporary travel ban and the hearing sometime in October?”
In an interview with Fox News, Judge Napalitano explained what the Supreme Court’s decision means.
“Between today and when the Supreme Court rules, the president’s travel ban will stay in effect,” Napolitano stated. “And all court rulings that have interfered with that travel ban are null and void as of today.”
Napalitano explained the Supreme Court removed the stays on the President’s travel ban, with one exception – if an immigrant comes from one of the six countries listed on the ban, and they have a relationship with someone in the U.S., they are not subject to the ban.
He said the exception is how they got the liberal side of the court to agree.
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) June 26, 2017
Larson also reported that the ACLU is “trying to put a positive spin” on the situation, by stating, “Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down.”
Indeed, the ACLU has come out with guns blazing on their Twitter page, vowing, “We’ll head back into court to fight the fundamentally unconstitutional Muslim ban this October.”
— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 26, 2017
Bloomberg reporter Bob Van Voris noted the following important facts:
- Nine-member court unanimously agreed to hear the appeal. Only four required.
- Six signed on to the majority opinion limiting the injunctions. That required five votes.
- Three justices would have allowed the full executive order to go forward while the court considers the case.
Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, of New Hampshire, tweeted out her displeasure over the Supreme Court’s decision, saying, “Muslim travel ban has no merit & offensive to our nation’s core values, Disappointed SCOTUS decision will allow partial ban to take effect.”
Muslim travel ban has no merit & offensive to our nation’s core values. Disappointed SCOTUS decision will allow partial ban to take effect
— Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (@SenatorShaheen) June 26, 2017
On the other side, Luther Strange, the Republican senator appointed to replace now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, praised the ruling, tweeting, “Great news for our national security, the rule of law and @POTUS.”
— Sen Luther Strange (@SenatorStrange) June 26, 2017
Concern is mounting that the exception allowed will flood the courts with the burden of deciding if an immigrant has a true connection to a person or entity within the U.S. in order to be permitted to enter the country.
— Kathryn (@kwcali) June 26, 2017
JOIN THE MOVEMENT to SAVE THE NATIONAL ANTHEM
Please join the thousands of DML readers who have purchased a bumper sticker. CLICK HERE.
If you would like to receive Breaking News text alerts on a smartphone or tablet, download the DML APP which is completely FREE and easy to use. Go to the Google Play Store or the IOS App Store and search for DML APP. Be sure to keep the app’s notifications setting on. Another way to receive alerts is to text to 40404 the following message: follow @realdennislynch (be sure to put a space between the word follow and the @ symbol).
To see more stories like this, sign up below for Dennis Michael Lynch’s email newsletter.
Sign up to get breaking news alerts from Dennis Michael Lynch.
Liberal writer’s racist tweet about deportation backfires