{"id":46056,"date":"2017-10-06T06:24:25","date_gmt":"2017-10-06T06:24:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=46056"},"modified":"2017-10-06T06:24:37","modified_gmt":"2017-10-06T06:24:37","slug":"trump-asks-supreme-court-dismiss-travel-ban-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/politics\/trump-asks-supreme-court-dismiss-travel-ban-cases.html","title":{"rendered":"Trump Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Travel Ban Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Travel Ban Cases<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Travel Ban Cases:- The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to dismiss two cases challenging its revised travel ban, issued in March, saying they are moot in light of recent developments. But the plaintiffs urged the justices to decide the cases notwithstanding recent changes in the scope and duration of the travel restrictions.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court had been set to hear arguments in the case on Oct. 10. But the justices removed the case from the argument calendar last month after the administration announced in a presidential proclamation that it would replace temporary travel restrictions issued in March that had limited travel from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days.<\/span><\/p>\n

The new restrictions, which are set to take effect on Oct. 18, apply in various ways to nine countries. Most citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea will be barred from entering the United States, while citizens of Iraq and some groups of people in Venezuela will face restrictions or heightened scrutiny.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cA case is moot,\u201d Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco wrote on Thursday, \u201cwhen a challenged government regulation is replaced by one that is not substantially similar.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The new restrictions are different from the earlier ones in important ways, he wrote, and were \u201cbased on detailed findings regarding the national security interests of the United States that were reached after a thorough, worldwide review and extensive consultation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

A challenge to the new restrictions, Mr. Francisco wrote, \u201cmust proceed on its own terms and in the district court in the first instance.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The American Civil Liberties Union has already challenged the latest order in a pending case in a federal court in Maryland. The addition of two countries that are not majority Muslim, the group said, did not cure the \u201coriginal sin\u201d of the earlier orders. All three orders, it said, were an effort to make good on President Trump\u2019s campaign pledge to institute a \u201cMuslim ban.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In its own Supreme Court filing on Thursday, the A.C.L.U. urged the justices to proceed. \u201cThis case is not moot,\u201d the group said. \u201cPlaintiffs retain an all-too-real stake in the outcome of the case. The 90-day ban on their relatives has now been converted into an indefinite ban with the potential to separate their families, and thousands of others\u2019, for years.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Lawyers for the State of Hawaii, which had also sued to block the March order, agreed.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe parties retain a live dispute regarding the legality\u201d of the order, they wrote. \u201cAccordingly, this court should once again set the case for argument and adjudicate the legality of the president\u2019s ongoing effort to usurp Congress\u2019s power over immigration and unilaterally ban hundreds of millions of foreign nationals \u2014 the overwhelming majority of them Muslim \u2014 from the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

Last month\u2019s proclamation did not address a second aspect of the March order, which suspended the nation\u2019s refugee program. That suspension was also at issue in the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Francisco wrote that the administration will soon revise the restrictions on the refugee program, which are due to expire on Oct. 24. That new action, he said, will also make that second part of the cases moot.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the cases, Mr. Francisco asked the justices to vacate the two appeals court decisions under appeal. \u201cIf allowed to stand,\u201d he wrote, \u201cthe lower courts\u2019 decisions threaten to undermine the executive\u2019s ability to deal with sensitive foreign policy issues in strategically important regions of the world.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The plaintiffs in both cases urged the justices to let the appeals court decisions stand even if they dismiss the appeals from them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Source:-\u00a0https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/10\/05\/us\/politics\/trump-supreme-court-travel-ban.html<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t