{"id":57080,"date":"2018-01-20T06:25:03","date_gmt":"2018-01-20T06:25:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=57080"},"modified":"2018-01-20T06:25:03","modified_gmt":"2018-01-20T06:25:03","slug":"supreme-court-to-rule-on-trumps-powers-to-ban-foreign-travelers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/politics\/supreme-court-to-rule-on-trumps-powers-to-ban-foreign-travelers.html","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s powers to ban foreign travelers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s powers to ban foreign travelers<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide whether President Trump\u2019s responsibility to protect the nation grants him authority to ban travelers from specific countries and that it will rule by June in the case, a major examination of the president\u2019s powers.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court will consider the third iteration of Trump\u2019s travel ban, issued last fall, which bars various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lower courts have struck down each version, but the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has given the administration hope that Trump may be able to carry out one of the most significant and divisive initiatives of his presidency.<\/span><\/p>\n

What the president has said is a necessary step to protect the country from terrorism has been characterized by his opponents as an illegal and unconstitutional fulfillment of campaign promises to ban Muslim immigrants.<\/span><\/p>\n

His first order, issued a week after his inauguration, created chaos at airports and prompted protests in the United States and abroad. Trump\u2019s comments and tweets about immigration and terrorism have ensured that the issue remains at the front of the national debate.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a short order accepting the case for argument in April, the justices said they will consider the statutory justification for Trump\u2019s actions as well as charges from opponents that it is an unconstitutional restriction based on religious discrimination.<\/span><\/p>\n

The order would also seem to further ensure a blockbuster conclusion to the court\u2019s term in June \u2014 the Supreme Court already is considering potentially landmark cases on partisan gerrymandering, privacy, unions and a clash between religious rights and gay rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

In requesting the court provide a final answer on the travel ban, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco said the high court must reestablish the vast authority the president wields when the nation\u2019s security is at stake.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe courts below have overridden the President\u2019s judgments on sensitive matters of national security and foreign relations, and severely restricted the ability of this and future Presidents to protect the nation,\u201d Francisco wrote in his petition to the court.<\/span><\/p>\n

Challengers to the ban \u2014 in this case, the state of Hawaii and others \u2014 say Trump has exceeded his legal authority.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cNo prior president has attempted to implement a policy that so baldly exceeds the statutory limits on the President\u2019s power to exclude, or so nakedly violates Congress\u2019s bar on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas,\u201d said Hawaii\u2019s brief asking the court to let lower-court decisions stand.<\/span><\/p>\n

But there are indications that the Supreme Court will be more sympathetic to the administration\u2019s claim than the lower courts that have rejected it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Last month, in an unsigned opinion, the justices said the restrictions in Trump\u2019s latest version of the ban could go into effect as envisioned while legal challenges to the merits of the decision continued.<\/span><\/p>\n

That decision, which included noted dissents only from liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, in effect discarded a compromise the justices fashioned regarding the second version of the plan. That compromise said the ban would not affect those who could prove significant connections to the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

The current version of the plan imposes various restrictions on travelers from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. The first six of those countries have Muslim-majority populations, and the restrictions on travelers from North Korea and Venezuela are not part of the challenge.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court will review a unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. That panel said the third version of the travel ban suffered from the deficiencies of the first two \u2014 that Trump had again exceeded his lawful authority and that he had not made a legally sufficient finding that entry of those blocked would be \u201cdetrimental to the interests of the United States.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Another challenge to the ban is still resting with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond. That full court is considering a ruling by a Maryland judge that the ban violates the Constitution because it is effectively a ban on Muslims. Judge Theodore D. Chuang considered Trump\u2019s statements and tweets in reaching his decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite a nudge from the Supreme Court last month to work quickly, the 4th Circuit has yet to rule. The case could be added, but the Supreme Court told the administration and Hawaii to also argue that constitutional question.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s moves on the issue have been controversial from the start. After the first version was rejected by the courts, the administration replaced it with a second one. It barred entry by nationals of six overwhelmingly Muslim countries for 90 days, excluded all refugees for 120 days and capped annual refugee admissions at 50,000.<\/span><\/p>\n

Courts put that order on hold as well. That is when the Supreme Court fashioned the compromise that permitted the ban to go into effect but granted entry to those with a significant connection to the United States, such as family members, a waiting job or an academic opportunity.<\/span><\/p>\n

The justices were scheduled to decide the merits of that ban last fall. But the order expired before oral arguments, and the administration replaced it with the third order.<\/span><\/p>\n

Whatever the shortcomings of the first two orders, Francisco told the court, the third followed a painstaking review process to determine which countries did not have procedures in place to screen out those who might intend to harm the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

The eight countries named in the current ban \u201cdo not share adequate information with the United States to assess the risks their nationals pose, or they present other heightened risk factors,\u201d Francisco wrote. \u201cWhereas prior orders of the President were designed to facilitate the review, the [current] Proclamation directly responds to the completed review and its specific findings of deficiencies in particular countries.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Hawaii argued that the current ban is worse than the previous ones, because it is permanent unless the administration takes some action to amend it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe President has issued a proclamation, without precedent in this Nation\u2019s history, that purports to ban over 150 million aliens from this country based on nationality alone,\u201d said Hawaii\u2019s brief to the court, written by Washington lawyer Neal K. Katyal. \u201cThe immigration laws do not grant the President this power: Congress has delegated him only a measure of its authority to exclude harmful aliens or respond to exigencies, and it has expressly prohibited discrimination based on nationality.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Source:-\u00a0https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/courts_law\/supreme-court-to-rule-on-trumps-powers-to-ban-foreign-travelers\/2018\/01\/19\/9e6e1242-fc90-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html?utm_term=.13fc9c8a9786<\/span><\/p>\n

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