[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Report: Special Counsel Robert Mueller Focusing on Trump Obstruction, Not Collusion

Suozzi (D-NY) Suggests Using the ‘Second Amendment’ on Trump

Did Putin Order the Salisbury Hit?

US Boy Scouts revoke badges from Down's syndrome boy

China To U.S.: ‘Correct The Mistake’ Of Passing Taiwan Travel Act Or Face ‘Military Pressure’

Microsoft tries out new must-use-Edge ploy in Windows 10 preview

Navy Seal Says He Killed Bin Laden — and the Photos of His Dead Body Are Fake

Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian In Arizona: Bigger Government Guaranteed

Trump’s election consultants filmed saying they use bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians

Hypocrisy: Why Is It OK When the US Meddles in Elections but Not When Russia Does It?

Women Fined $100,000, Face Potential Jail Time, Just for Braiding Hair

Pelosi Fights Off Democrats Who See Her Leadership as ‘Toxic’ to Party’s Image

Hillary Clinton’s India Trip Cost Taxpayers More than $22k

China's premier hopes trade war can be averted, pledges more open economy

How do civil wars happen?

Sad Truth

Robert Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks

China's space lab to crash soon

This Teen Built A Prosthetic Arm Using Lego

Libertysflames question of the week...Can you think of anything worse then.......

Suozzi Suggests Using the ‘Second Amendment’ on Trump

Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Arizona Pedestrian

JUDAS PRIEST Scores Highest-Charting Album Ever In U.S. With 'Firepower'

Restaurant Patrons Fight Back Against Cop As He Savagely Beats Autistic 12-year-old Girl “UFC-Style”

Deciding To Die (Gun Confiscation)

Muslim pedophile grandfather sold children for sex in his ‘rape house’ where perverts queued down the stairs to abuse little girls

Police officer busted for reverse drunken driving

New Yorker Magazine Under Fire for Body-Shaming Trump

A frustrated Trump lashes out at special counsel Mueller

Cars That Parent Us

Edward Snowden: Facebook Is A Surveillance Company Rebranded As "Social Media"

The conformity of walking out

Hungary PM: Europe Under Migrant Invasion – Those Who Don’t Block it at Their Borders Will be Lost

History of Gun Violence

Going to the Gun Range With Family Got These Students Suspended From School

The End of the world as we know it

Is The U.S. Economy Really Growing? (No)

It Begins: Florida Resident’s Firearms, Ammunition Confiscated Under Gun Control Law

The College of the Holy Cross 'Crusaders' mascot succumbs to 'Islamophobia' concerns

CEO Susan Wojcicki to 'Fight Conspiracies' on YouTube by Adding Wikipedia Boxes to Videos

Sign Referencing Civil War Hero Is Sexual Harassment, Says Massachusetts Lawmaker

It's all Eve's fault

Arizona's Flake, in New Hampshire, mulls 2020 challenge to Trump

Donald Trump signs Taiwan Travel Act despite warning from mainland China

McCabe Fired

Sunrise over the Swamp

Chicago students trash Walmart during walkout over gun violence

Mix up lands senior citizen behind bars for not mowing lawn

Zakharova Tells Who Is Really Behind The Salisbury Anti-Russian Campaign

10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: In victory for Trump, Supreme Court dismisses travel ban case
Source: USA Today
URL Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news ... ses-travel-ban-case/752401001/
Published: Oct 10, 2017
Author: Richard Wolf and Gregory Korte
Post Date: 2017-10-11 09:22:55 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 92
Comments: 6

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Trump's travel ban on majority-Muslim countries Tuesday because it has been replaced by a new version, sending the controversy back to the starting block.

The ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the court to drop the case after Trump signed a proclamation Sept. 24 that replaced the temporary travel ban on six nations with a new, indefinite ban affecting eight countries. That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.

"We express no view on the merits," the justices said in a one-page order.

The decision effectively wipes the record clean in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, one of two federal appeals courts that had struck down major portions of Trump's travel ban. That case began in Maryland.

A separate case from the 9th Circuit, based in California, remains pending because it includes a ban on refugees worldwide that won't expire until later this month. But the Supreme Court is likely to ditch that case, which began in Hawaii, as well.

The challengers in both cases already have renewed their lawsuits in the lower courts, starting the legal process anew. In Maryland, a federal district court has scheduled a new hearing for next week.

But the new travel ban and the Supreme Court's order vacating the 4th Circuit appeals court judgment puts the administration in a somewhat stronger position, at least for now.

The 4th Circuit case was brought by the International Refugee Assistance Project, which argued that banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court's action. She would have dismissed the case but in a way that would have preserved the appeals court ruling against the ban, rather than vacating it.

Under its original schedule, the court would have heard the case Tuesday, but had delayed oral argument after Trump replaced his earlier order. The new version followed a three-month review of immigration procedures.

The latest travel ban targets five countries included in two previous versions — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — as well as Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. Unlike the earlier bans, it treats some countries and types of travelers, such as students or tourists, differently than others.

The administration told the justices last week that the new ban is "based on detailed findings regarding the national security interests of the United States that were reached after a thorough, worldwide review and extensive consultation."

The ban's challengers argued that the case against the last version should go forward because many of the same travelers and their families are adversely affected — not just for 90 days, but indefinitely.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the 4th Circuit challenge on behalf of the refugee group, had said charges of anti-Muslim discrimination still applied "despite some new window dressing" — a reference to the addition of North Korea and Venezuela.

Hawaii, which brought the 9th Circuit challenge, warned the justices that elements of the earlier ban still could be revived, since Trump has said he wants a "much tougher version."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.

So OUR constitutional first amendment freedom of religion protects the right of some Muslim living in Syrian -- with no documents -- to freely enter the United Sta Sta States?

But it doesn't protect the right of a U.S. citizen to refuse service on religious grounds.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-11   9:48:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

Well, the Court is a little cowardly here, saying that Trump changed his EO so the original case from the Fourth Circuit is moot. Pretty elementary lawyering.

The Hawaii case continues but it looks pretty bad for them at this point.

In the end, I think Trump wins this one. And, since he's already paid the full freight on immigration restrictions in these cases, he has no incentive whatsoever to liberalize his policies at all. He is, in fact, moving to greatly restrict refugee status, immigrant visas, children rushing our border unaccompanied, etc.

The libs will rage but they made Trump pay the price for his policies. And now Trump is going to get his money's worth out of it. Sessions is all too willing to help as he has been tarred and feathered by the same libtards for years on these policies.

They're going to regret they tried to pull this shabby trick on Trump. They've hurt their own cause ultimately. And Stephen Miller remains in the WH, pointing this out to Trump over and over.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-10-11   10:01:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)

And Stephen Miller remains in the WH

May he forever stay.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-11   10:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#4. To: Tooconservative (#2)

That's right. It's one thing to whine and kvetch about Alsace-Lorraine, but if you cross the border and actually try to grab it, and have to be pushed back out by force, with loss andcost, there's no reason for the victor to just stop at the Rhine and call it all fair.

No, no. You continue across the Rhine with the momentum of victory, and you bite a big chunk out of the hide of the people who started it. There's no "going back to go". It's we go back to go, and you start $200 down.

Trump won, now he exploits the win.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-11   10:52:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

Trump has paid the full freight, he may as well enjoy the ride.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-10-11   11:08:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)

Damn right!

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-11   13:55:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com