SCOTUS upholds travel ban!


Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
600
1,242
SCOTUS has not upheld the travel ban. It has agreed to hear the matter during its next term (which begins in October).

It has also stayed the injunctions against the executive order in part and left them in place in part. So, in the meantime, the executive order can be enforced in some contexts but can't be enforced in others. As Justice Thomas suggested in his partial dissent, this is likely to create a legal mess until the Supreme Court ultimately rules on the executive order.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
And this is why Trump I'm glad Trump won SCOTUS picks.
Gorsuch was in the minority of this opinion. So that pick didn't accomplish much on this ruling.
... the ban is now only halted with respect to “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Such a relationship may be a close family member in the United States, or a job offer from an American company, or an invitation to lecture an American audience, or an offer of admission from an American university.

https://thinkprogress.org/how-to-make-sense-of-the-confusing-supreme-court-opinion-on-the-muslim-ban-47825b0375da
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
Why not link to the actual ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
People need to learn to read the original source first, before reading secondary sources and opinion pieces.

"We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion."

"this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

"The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. 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."

"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 90-day life of §2(c)."​

So all one needs to do to get around Trump's travel ban is claim any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US. This is already a requirement of obtaining a visa anyway. If someone doesn't have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US, they wouldn't have received a visa to begin with. Who does this travel ban, as modified by SCOTUS, cover?

So...
Visiting a friend or relative in the US - not covered by the travel ban.
Visiting the US to work - not covered by the travel ban.
Visiting the US as a student - not covered by the travel ban.
Visiting the US to give a lecture - not covered by the travel ban.

I bet Trump will call this victory because he's an idiot, but what kind of victory is this? Under SCOTUS's ruling, who will the travel ban stop from entering the US who otherwise would have made it into the US? The answer is nobody!
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
Gorsuch was in the minority of this opinion.
No he wasn't. It was a Per Curiam opinion, meaning the court speaks with "one voice", and that included Gorsuch. Gorsuch, along with Thomas and Alito (arguably the most conservative members of the court right now) wrote separately to concur in the judgment and dissent in part. Their "dissent" was essentially that in their view they would have stayed the entire injunction instead of allowing Sec. 2C to apply only to parties "similarly situated" to the petitioners Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and the state of Hawaii.

The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.
One key take-away of this decision is that the Government (i.e., President Trump) has made a strong showing that the foundations of the EO and its purpose are likely to succeed on the merits and that the lower court rulings will be reversed.
 
Last edited:

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
SCOTUS has not upheld the travel ban. It has agreed to hear the matter during its next term (which begins in October).

It has also stayed the injunctions against the executive order in part and left them in place in part. So, in the meantime, the executive order can be enforced in some contexts but can't be enforced in others. As Justice Thomas suggested in his partial dissent, this is likely to create a legal mess until the Supreme Court ultimately rules on the executive order.
I hope the right never complains about activist judges again considering the Supreme Court just rewrote Trump's travel ban with to barely pass constitutional muster.

But truely given that's trump said the government just needed time to implement better vetting if this executive order wasn't an attempt at a Muslim ban there should have already been plenty of time to do that so the ban should be moot at this point.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
I hope the right never complains about activist judges again considering the Supreme Court just rewrote Trump's travel ban with to barely pass constitutional muster.

But truely given that's trump said the government just needed time to implement better vetting if this executive order wasn't an attempt at a Muslim ban there should have already been plenty of time to do that so the ban should be moot at this point.
that there is a slippery slope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macintoshmac

Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
600
1,242
Why not link to the actual ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
People need to learn to read the original source first, before reading secondary sources and opinion pieces.

"We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion."

"this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

"The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. 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."

"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 90-day life of §2(c)."​

So all one needs to do to get around Trump's travel ban is claim any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US. This is already a requirement of obtaining a visa anyway. If someone doesn't have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US, they wouldn't have received a visa to begin with. Who does this travel ban, as modified by SCOTUS, cover?

So...
Visiting a friend or relative in the US - not covered by the travel ban.
Visiting the US to work - not covered by the travel ban.
Visiting the US as a student - not covered by the travel ban.
Visiting the US to give a lecture - not covered by the travel ban.

I bet Trump will call this victory because he's an idiot, but what kind of victory is this? Under SCOTUS's ruling, who will the travel ban stop from entering the US who otherwise would have made it into the US? The answer is nobody!
I don't think this decision (i.e. regarding the injunctions) can fairly be considered a full victory for either side. Neither side is likely to be really happy, behind closed doors, with this interim result. That won't stop some from publicly portraying it as a substantial vindication of their respective positions.

Reading the tea leaves, I think this result gives both sides reason to be optimistic about what the Court will ultimately decide on the permissibility of various parts of the executive order.

That said, to answer your last question, this decision could certainly affect refugee admissions in the meantime. For most refugees, they aren't likely to have the requisite (and otherwise existing) connection to the United States. Other people will likely be affected as well, but that aspect of the stay stands out on (my) first consideration.
[doublepost=1498492405][/doublepost]
I hope the right never complains about activist judges again considering the Supreme Court just rewrote Trump's travel ban with to barely pass constitutional muster.

But truely given that's trump said the government just needed time to implement better vetting if this executive order wasn't an attempt at a Muslim ban there should have already been plenty of time to do that so the ban should be moot at this point.
I don't think the Court has rewritten the executive order. It's just found differently, when it comes to the balance of equities inquiry, for different contexts where the travel ban would apply.

Regarding the mootness issue: The Court has asked for additional briefing on that issue and certainly could decide, when it considers the case later this year, to effectively dismiss it (or part of it) on those grounds - i.e., that relevant portions of the executive order are, by their owns terms, no longer in effect anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PracticalMac

PracticalMac

macrumors 68030
Jan 22, 2009
2,745
3,706
Houston, TX
Not really.

The court made an important exception: It said the ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

In the unsigned opinion, the court said that a foreign national who wants to visit or live with a family member would have such a relationship, and so would students from the designated countries — Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — who were admitted to a U.S. university.

The court said it would hear the case when it reconvenes in October. But it also indicated in the ruling that things may change dramatically by then. It asked the parties to address whether the case would be moot by the time it hears it; the ban is supposed to be a temporary one while the government reviews its vetting procedures.
IOW, a partial upholding.

AND is it NOT an approval, just a, well, a pause until later review.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,248
Scotland
The 90 days are over (the period of the travel ban that was to allow officials 'to figure out' what's going on). We're on day 158 of Trump's administration. Therefore, there is no need for a travel ban unless Trump and his administration have been sitting on their backsides contemplating their collective navel.
 

PracticalMac

macrumors 68030
Jan 22, 2009
2,745
3,706
Houston, TX
The 90 days are over (the period of the travel ban that was to allow officials 'to figure out' what's going on). We're on day 158 of Trump's administration. Therefore, there is no need for a travel ban unless Trump and his administration have been sitting on their backsides contemplating their collective navel.
And yes, that too.

Had Trump followed with is promises his "extreme vetting" would already be in place (has he even started it???), and the need for the ban is gone.
Ban should be gone anyway (which is why SCOTUS is saying it may simply go away).
 
  • Like
Reactions: trsblader

alex2792

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 13, 2009
768
2,136
The 90 days are over (the period of the travel ban that was to allow officials 'to figure out' what's going on). We're on day 158 of Trump's administration. Therefore, there is no need for a travel ban unless Trump and his administration have been sitting on their backsides contemplating their collective navel.
What if the administration has determined that the only way to keep the country safe is by extending the ban indefinitely?
 

PracticalMac

macrumors 68030
Jan 22, 2009
2,745
3,706
Houston, TX
What if the administration has determined that the only way to keep the country safe is by extending the ban indefinitely?
They they should have said so.
They did not, so technically the ban should end.

Donald Trump:
I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
So, yeah, the ban seems to be technically over.


(....except he singed a new order (I am sure lawyers came up with idea) that had an automatic reset of date)
 
Last edited:

alex2792

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 13, 2009
768
2,136
That was their motive all along - to systemically apply prejudice against a class of people, many of whom have done nothing wrong, indefinitely. Shame on them (Trump and his cronies).
I really am sympathetic to the good people who may be affected by the ban, but think about it this way, you have a bag of skittles where 1 skittle is laced with cyanide and will kill you. Would you still take the chance of eating from that bag of skittles?