Supreme Court Travel Ban Victory

Don't let the qualified headlines or lead paragraphs in most of the news media fool you. Monday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing just about all of President Donald Trump's travel and immigration ban to go into effect is a very significant victory for his administration. But while many Americans are still very angered by the ban, the whole country should celebrate the important victory this is for our constitutional separation of powers. That's because the lower court decisions against the administration were transparently partisan and flimsy. One of the clearest forms of constitutional law is that the President of the United States and the Executive Branch has control of the immigration process and the borders of the country. That's how even President Obama imposed severe immigration restrictions of his own in 2011 when it stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months. In victory for Trump, U.S. Supreme Court revives Trump travel ban



The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States while agreeing to decide this fall the legality of the order.



The case represents a major test of presidential powers. The justices, in their unsigned decision, granted parts of the Trump administration's emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.



The court, which narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked his March 6 executive order, said it would hear arguments in October on the lawfulness of one of Trump's signature policies in his first months as president.



The Court today unanimously halted the Fourth Circuit’s order in its tracks, although it kept the injunction against Trump’s ban in place for those aliens with family connections and those with pre-existing educational or business ties to the United States. As Justice Thomas noted, by allowing Trump to ban other entrants from the countries in question while the case proceeded, the unsigned opinion implicitly assumed that Trump is likely to win at least a partial victory in the case. Given the incredulity of liberal commenters at the idea that the Trump administration might have any leg to stand on, that alone is a sweet victory even if Trump ends up losing in the end. The Court divided on how much of the order to reinstate, with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch arguing that there was no principled or workable basis for drawing a line between prospective entrants based on their pre-existing ties to the U.S. But even the Court’s liberals were clearly wise to how liberal legal activists might try to game the temporary exception it created:



As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion. Ninth Circuit gives green light for much larger travel ban The Court today unanimously halted the Fourth Circuit’s order in its tracks, although it kept the injunction against Trump’s ban in place for those aliens with family connections and those with pre-existing educational or business ties to the United States. As Justice Thomas noted, by allowing Trump to ban other entrants from the countries in question while the case proceeded, the unsigned opinion implicitly assumed that Trump is likely to win at least a partial victory in the case. Given the incredulity of liberal commenters at the idea that the Trump administration might have any leg to stand on, that alone is a sweet victory even if Trump ends up losing in the end. The Court divided on how much of the order to reinstate, with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch arguing that there was no principled or workable basis for drawing a line between prospective entrants based on their pre-existing ties to the U.S. But even the Court’s liberals were clearly wise to how liberal legal activists might try to game the temporary exception it created:As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion. According to University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner, the courts are creating a “Trump exception” to settled law on presidential powers by ignoring the Supreme Court’s admonition in Kleindienst v. Mandel that courts may not “look behind” a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” when the president exercises immigration authority. The Ninth Circuit does mention the Supreme Court’s admonition in Mandel, but gives it only cursory attention (see footnote 9 on page 33 of the decision). If the Supreme Court does not intervene, Trump may be faced ultimately with the constitutional crisis of not being able to meet his national security responsibilities as the chief of the executive branch with respect to terrorism coming from Muslim countries, unless he defies the orders of the judicial branch.

Live Twitter Feeds - realDonaldTrump and POTUS

Trump applauds Supreme Court, feels ‘gratified’ by ruling to revive travel ban

The president said his plans will “become largely effective” and called the ruling “a clear victory for our national security.” “My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe,” he said in a statement. “Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.” “The Supreme Court did what the lower court judges would not: treat President Trump like any other president with the ‘presumption of regularity,’” Josh Blackman, associate professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, wrote on his blog. “The justices did not delve into the president’s Twitter account, nor did they parse his campaign statements.” The justices did, however, signal that they expect Mr. Trump to use the reprieve to quickly figure out and put into place new vetting policies — which was the point of the temporary pauses in the first place, according to the administration. “Given the Government’s representations in this litigation concerning the resources required to complete the 20-day review, we fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments” within the time frame laid out by Mr. Trump, the justices said. Trump’s Travel Ban Is Vindicated

Greg Gutfeld said the left's outrage at the Supreme Court's decision on President Trump's travel ban is "the result of one party being obsessed with Celsius rather than ISIS."



Gutfeld criticized the "knee-jerk" type of people who call the travel ban "bigoted."



"They're shrieking about this is somehow hateful and an emotional and not intellectual response" to immigration issues, Gutfeld said.



He said Trump's plan had been vindicated by the court's decision to allow part of the ban to remain as the bench looked forward to arguing the case later this year.

How low can they go? CNN's laughably 'sketchy' stunt The CNN team is extremely upset that the White House is limiting coverage of daily press briefings. White House press secretary Sean Spicer is relying more heavily on gaggles and audio only press briefings. To fight back, CNN actually brought in a courtroom sketch artist. No, really, they did.