Trump likely to win travel ban case at Supreme Court

Roberts asked a lawyer challenging Trump’s travel ban.

Kennedy said that this ban was not permanent and that its inclusion of a requirement to conduct ongoing reports about the targetted countries made it legal. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and the late Justice Thurgood Marshall’s widow Cecilia, who sat next to White House counsel Don McGahn.

Typically, two cases are heard each day, beginning at 10 a.m. My only point is that if you look at what was done, it does not look at all like a Muslim ban. In addition to not being true, that’s a political argument and not a legal one.

Here are a few of those questions, which offer a glimpse into where each justice stands. Justice Neil Gorsuch seems ready to join him (presumably Justice Clarence Thomas too), while Justice Samuel Alito was clearly with the government on the merits.

Kennedy said he did not see why the president’s order had to have a time limit. If the petitioner reserves time for rebuttal, the petitioner speaks last.

Those concerns were echoed by his conservative colleagues, including Roberts, who suggested that second-guessing the president’s national security decisions would lead to a slippery slope that could render the president powerless. “Chief Justice, and may it please the Court“.

The justices took the rare step of making an audio recording of Wednesday’s proceedings.

Who’s representing each side at the hearing?

The Trump administration has introduced three versions of a travel ban, and all three have been challenged in court.

Both arguments got time Wednesday. Courts don’t get to review that kind of determination.

Islam is not a country, but a religion, the followers of which are called Muslims.

How long has this case been going?

The third version of the executive order, signed in September, bars travelers from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Venezuela (some government officials) and North Korea. Chad was initially on the list, but was removed following security upgrades and cooperation with US government, the administration said.

Among the group of protesters was Shayna Tivona, a teacher in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area who is now on maternity leave.

The current version of the ban is indefinite and now applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

Joining Hayden in signing a series of briefs opposing the travel ban are more than 55 former Central Intelligence Agency and deputy Central Intelligence Agency directors, counterterrorism chiefs, top diplomats with long records in the Middle East, secretaries of state and even the Republican chairman of the 9/11 Commission. In February of past year, for instance, he castigated a federal judge for blocking the first version of the travel ban. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upholds the ruling from Maryland on the basis of religious discrimination against Muslims.

Other conservative justices latched onto the idea that Congress had granted the president broad authority when it comes to allowing people into the country.

The Trump administration is asking the court to reverse lower court rulings striking down the ban.

Because the Trump order has now had an actual testing period, since it went into effect early in December, the question of how it is working became an issue that interested a number of Justices after it was first brought up by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

Still others, such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor, delved into just what authority Congress gave the president in the Immigration and Nationality Act, and under what circumstances the executive can unilaterally change immigration policy.

What are ban critics saying?

“Many Somalis living in Minnesota have really been confused”, said Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Minnesota chapter. “Together, we must continue to fight for the values that truly make America great”.

And, you know, Katyal explained.

What about supporters of the ban? Francisco argued that Donald Trump’s comments as a candidate could not be used to challenge restrictions on entry to the United States as national security was (a) primarily an executive branch responsibility, and (b) Trump had no official position in the executive when making those comments. “And it was also noted that he had not made those comments since being sworn in as president”.

When is a decision expected? Following the Supreme Court’s deliberation, we are hopeful that these bans, in all their forms, will be relegated to the footnotes of history.