HARD TRUTH: The Options We Have To Weigh On Travel Ban

Seth Connell reports that after two federal courts blocked the President’s revised travel ban against six Muslim-majority, terror prone nations, the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case and hear arguments regarding the order’s legality.

The lower courts, the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals, both blocked the revised travel ban, each for different reasons. The 9th Circuit held that the President exceeded his authority over immigration with the ban, and the 4th Circuit held that the President violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment by targeting Muslim majority countries.

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case, and has, for the time being, reinstated the travel ban while the case is being litigated. The order is not 100% intact, though, as the Wall Street Journal notes.

The justices, in an unsigned 13-page opinion, narrowed the scope of the ban for now, saying the president couldn’t enforce it against travelers “who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with someone or some organization in the U.S. The court imposed a similar narrowing of the ban on refugees.

The court said it would give closer consideration to the case in October, when it will hear oral arguments in the matter. The justices’ action came on the last day of their current term, before they take a three-month summer break

The ultimate fate of the ban will be decided in October when the new session of the Court begins. However, for the time being, the President has finally caught a break, and will be able to enforce most of the revised travel ban.

One of the issues with this decision though is that the 90 order would be over by the time the Court hears the case. So unless the ban is extended in its duration, the Court may decide that the case is moot since there would be no enacted order to litigate.

That is, unless the Trump administration renews the order, which certainly is possible.