Supreme Court allows limited version of Trump travel ban to go into effect and agrees to hear the ca

[underpants]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2017/06/26/supreme-court-allows-limited-version-of-trump-travel-ban-to-go-into-effect-and-agrees-to-hear-the-case-in-the-fall/



Supreme Court allows limited version of Trump travel ban to go into effect and agrees to hear the case in the fall

The case was at the Supreme Court because two federal appellate courts had ruled against President Trump’s travel policy, which would impose a 90-day pause in travel from citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The president’s travel order has been one of the most controversial of the Trump administration, as the first entry ban created chaos at airports around the world and prompted major protests here and abroad.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

[pangaia]

1. How did they vote? Anybody know?

Or did I miss it?

[Shrek]

5. It was a per curiam decision n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. It was a per curiam decision (by the court as a whole). They granted certiorari,

meaning they decided to hear the case on the merits during the October term, and they lifted the injunction on enforcing the ban only as it related to foreign nationals with no bona fide connection to a person or entity in the U.S. The injunction remains in place as to those who do have such a connection, which satisfies the concerns raised in the lower courts, where the plaintiffs argued that they would suffer hardship by being unable to see their families, do their jobs or attend school. Those who have no connection to the U.S. will be subject to the ban for the specified time periods, apparently to satisfy concerns relating to national security. The question remains whether the whole thing will be moot by the time the court hears the case, since the whole point of the EOs in the first place was to design a "vetting" process, which doesn't seem to have been done anyhow. Here's the opinion itself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

[pangaia]

11. Thanks for the detailed explanation and link....

I thought they had already voted on it..

[ismnotwasm]

13. Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas dissented

They seemed to indicate they would have upheld the whole thing--

[pangaia]

14. Why is that not surprising.... ? DUH !!!

[Johonny]

2. By the time they hear the case the 90 days will be up...and its been 90 days

since they first proposed it so the major question every news station should be asking is... why the * do they still need it since they said they only needed 90 days to fix the extreme vetting process. I mean, nothing has happened since it first got struck down. Nothing. So why does it exist and why can't Trump fix the vetting process in a timely fashion. Why, can't he do...anything at all? I imagine this 90 day travel ban will last until 2020 because we know it is more than a 90 day travel ban at this point.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Stop trying to find any kind of "sense"

where this is not and cannot be any.

[ismnotwasm]

4. Yeah--say he wins, hands down

What's he going to do?

[procon]

6. Sure, let them brand their business as mini churches and discriminate at will, BUT

once those bigots turn down that path then ALL the other religious taboos, bans and restrictions should also apply. Have you seen all the things a TRUE christian can't do?

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2l7qh2/41_things_the_bible_condemns_other_than/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. I think maybe you meant to post this in another thread about another decision.

[procon]

12. Gosh... Yes, my bad! nt

[underpants]

7. UPDATE

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.”

The court also said in the ruling that it would consider whether the case will be moot by the time it hears it; the ban is supposed to be a temporary one while the government reviews its vetting procedures.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. The whole opinion is at the link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf