As the chaos unspooled from President Trump’s executive order on family separations, a conventional wisdom quickly emerged: This order was an echo of the very first executive order of Trump’s presidency—the travel ban.
Latest in Travel Ban
Even before the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s travel ban, trust in law enforcement was eroding—and reaching a nadir—among American Muslims. Many view this administration’s policies as a source of Islamophobia and generalized suspicion of American Muslims.
Hot on the heels of the Kennedy retirement announcement, we’ve got our special Supreme Court finale episode! This is the show for you if you would enjoy detailed and amicable debate and discussion concerning:
When the Supreme Court handed down its decision on the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban, the morning unfolded largely as anticipated: By a 5-4 vote, the justices upheld the president’s proclamation on relatively narrow statutory grounds and chose to ignore his many expressions of hatred toward Muslims and Islam. There was a sharp dissent—in this case, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And there was, of course, a presidential tweet.
The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday in Trump v. Hawaii decisively puts to bed the “preliminary injunction” round of litigation over President Trump’s travel ban. In a 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court issued two core holdings: (a) that the latest ban does not exceed the president’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); and (b) that ban does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
During last Wednesday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said that the president’s travel ban excludes nationals of countries that fail to provide a “minimum baseline of information” needed to vet people entering the United States and that “the vast majority of the world” meets this “baseline.” Francisco described “reporting terrorism history information,” “reporting criminal history,” and “cooperat[ing] with us on a real-time basis” as part of that minimum
The Supreme Court has just granted certiorari in Hawaii’s challenge to the September 2017 iteration of President Trump’s travel ban (EO-3).
In a pair of unsigned orders, the Supreme Court today allowed the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban to go into complete effect. Only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor noted their dissent. While it is risky to read too much into entries on the Court’s so-called “shadow docket,” four issues are worth addressing.
Travel Ban Update: Without Addressing the Merits, the Supreme Court Stays Injunction Pending Further Proceedings
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Maryland federal district court’s injunction against the Sept. 24 immigration order (EO-3) in International Refugee Assistance Program v. Trump and an the identical stay of the injunction in Hawaii v. Trump. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the government’s request for a stay.
On Oct. 17, 2017, Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued an opinion and an order enjoining the implementation of President Trump’s latest travel ban. This round of litigation concerns Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued on Sept.