{"id":46829,"date":"2017-10-11T05:50:10","date_gmt":"2017-10-11T05:50:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=46829"},"modified":"2017-10-11T05:50:10","modified_gmt":"2017-10-11T05:50:10","slug":"supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-of-case-on-expired-travel-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/politics\/supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-of-case-on-expired-travel-ban.html","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Case on Expired Travel Ban"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Case on Expired Travel Ban<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Case on Expired Travel Ban:- The Supreme Court dismissed on Tuesday an appeal in one of the cases challenging President Trump\u2019s efforts to limit travel to the United States, calling an earlier version of the ban moot because it has expired.<\/span><\/p>\n

That travel ban has since been replaced with broader restrictions, and a second case remains before the justices \u2014 but it is likely to meet the same fate. If it does, a politically charged clash between presidential power and claims of religious discrimination that could have produced a blockbuster decision will instead end with a whimper.<\/span><\/p>\n

A new wave of litigation aimed at Mr. Trump\u2019s latest policies, announced last month, is already underway, and appeals in those cases may yet reach the Supreme Court. For now, though, what could have been one of the marquee cases of a busy term was removed from the docket.<\/span><\/p>\n

The case the court addressed Tuesday came from the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., which had ruled that the earlier travel ban, issued in March, violated the Constitution\u2019s protections against religious discrimination by singling out travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBecause that provision of the order \u2018expired by its own terms\u2019 on September 24, 2017,\u201d the court said in a brief unsigned order quoting an earlier decision, \u201cthe appeal no longer presents a \u2018live case or controversy.\u2019\u201d The justices vacated the appeals court\u2019s decision, meaning it cannot be used as precedent.<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying that she would have simply dismissed the case and allowed the appeals court decision to remain on the books.<\/span><\/p>\n

Still being considered \u2014 at least for now \u2014 is a case from the federal appeals court in San Francisco, which concerned both the travel ban against the six countries and a suspension of the nation\u2019s refugee program. The refugee suspension is due to expire this month. Once that happens, the court is likely to dismiss that case, too.<\/span><\/p>\n

Soon after Mr. Trump took office, he issued his first travel ban, causing confusion and protests at airports nationwide and drawing immediate challenges in court. Several federal judges blocked aspects of the order, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, affirmed one of those injunctions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rather than appeal that loss to the Supreme Court, the administration issued a revised executive order in March. It limited travel from six predominantly Muslim countries and suspended the country\u2019s refugee program. After two appeals courts blocked the order, the Supreme Court agreed in June to hear the administration\u2019s appeals, scheduling arguments for Oct. 10.<\/span><\/p>\n

Over the summer, the two sides continued to tangle in court over what aspects of the second travel ban could be enforced in the meantime. In its June order, the Supreme Court said that people with \u201ca credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States\u201d could continue to enter the country. In rulings issued in July and September, the justices upheld broad restrictions against refugees entering the United States but allowed grandparents and other relatives of American residents to travel here.<\/span><\/p>\n

The executive orders Mr. Trump issued in January and March were temporary. In late September, he issued a new proclamation imposing an indefinite ban on travel from seven countries and restrictions on two others. The new policy included limits on travel from two countries that are not predominantly Muslim, North Korea and Venezuela.<\/span><\/p>\n

The new policy prompted the Supreme Court to cancel oral arguments in the two cases and to ask the parties for briefs on whether they were moot. The administration said they were, and it urged the court to vacate the appeals court decisions. The challengers asked the justices to hear the appeals and to leave the appeals court decisions in place if they decided to dismiss them.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

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