SCOTUS Will Hear Objections To Trump's Travel Ban

SCOTUS Will Hear Objections To Trump's Travel Ban

It marked the second time the Supreme Court agreed to hear the issue.

Normally, the government would appeal a district judge's decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That same day, President Donald Trump met with lawmakers to discuss the creation of a clean DREAM Act that would allow DACA recipients and undocumented immigrants, also known as Dreamers, a path to citizenship without the attachment of Trump's border wall funding or the end to the US visa lottery program.

"The president has issued a proclamation, without precedent in this nation's history, that purports to ban over 150 million aliens from this country based on nationality alone", said Hawaii's brief to the court, written by Washington lawyer Neal Katyal.

The Supreme Court, which is tackling a series of consequential cases during its current term, signaled on December 4 it was likely to uphold the policy.

The U.S. Justice Department said on Thursday it had asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling last week that blocked President Donald Trump's move to end a program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children. The justices in June allowed much of the travel ban to take effect, except for those who already had established close ties to people or institutions in this country.

In what could prove decisive in a legal battle that has roiled the first year of the Trump administration, the high court will rule on whether the president exceeded his powers and engaged in religious discrimination in the third rendering of the ban.

Those challenging the travel ban have argued that it was motivated by Trump's enmity toward Muslims, pressing that point in court with some success by citing statements he made as a candidate and as president. A couple weeks later, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled - again - that the ban was illegal.

The order came in response to an Administration appeal of a decision by lower courts that the President did not have the authority, under immigration law, to adopt a permanent restriction on entrance by individuals from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The government contends the immigration order is the result of a multi-federal agency review of whether foreign governments provide sufficient information to screen their nationals. The order issued Friday afternoon referred specifically to the constitutional question as proposed in Hawaii's legal brief. Unless the court steps in, the government continued, the district court's order could remain in effect for months while it appeals to the 9th Circuit; if the 9th Circuit were to leave the order in place, the government emphasized, "it could continue for more than a year given the Court's calendar".



Other news