Supreme Court to consider Trump's travel ban and the president's authority

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Courts & Law

Supreme Court to consider Trump's travel ban and the president's authority

By Robert Barnes April 25 at 6:00 AM

[e-mail]

The Supreme Court for the first time Wednesday considers a major initiative of the Trump administration, reviewing whether President Trumps travel ban is a necessary step to protect the country from terrorism or an illegal and unconstitutional fulfillment of campaign promises to ban Muslim immigrants. ... Lower courts have struck down each of the three iterations of the presidents proclamation, the first of which was issued just a week after he took office in January 2017. But the conservative-leaning Supreme Court may be Trumps best hope, and it gave the administration a boost by allowing the ban to go into effect in December while considering the challenges to it.

{In travel ban case, Supreme Court considers the president versus this president}
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-travel-ban-case-supreme-court-considers-the-president-vs-this-president/2018/04/22/f33f1edc-44cb-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html

The court will consider the third iteration of Trumps travel ban, issued last fall, which barred various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities. They are Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. But restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela are not part of the challenge, and Chad was removed from the list earlier this month. ... 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 nations security is at stake.
....

The justices are reviewing 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 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 detrimental to the interests of the United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck down the ban on the constitutional question. The 9-to-4 decision took a deep dive into Trumps statements and tweets since he became president and concluded the proclamation, like the first two, was motivated not by national security concerns but by antipathy toward Muslims.
....

The case is Trump v. Hawaii.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow @scotusreporter

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-consider-trumps-travel-ban-and-the-presidents-authority/2018/04/24/7413b180-480a-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html

---

The last #scotus argument of the term today is a big one: Supreme Court to consider Trumps travel ban and the presidents authority

Link to tweet

== == == == ==

Edith Roberts Editor

Posted Wed, April 25th, 2018 7:12 am

Wednesday round-up

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/wednesday-round-up-420/

This morning the Supreme Court ends its last session of the term with a bang when it hears argument in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the latest version of the Trump administration’s entry ban. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview, which was first published at Howe on the Court. Madelaine Horn and Conley Wouters preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Subscript has a graphic explainer. Lyle Denniston takes a close look at the case at Constitution Daily. For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that the justices will consider “whether President Trump’s travel ban is a necessary step to protect the country from terrorism or an illegal and unconstitutional fulfillment of campaign promises to ban Muslim immigrants.” Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR, Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Espresso blog, Richard Wolf at USA Today, and Bill Mears at Fox News, who reports that “[t]he case will be the first significant legal test so far of the president’s administration and could lead to a precedent-setting ruling on the limits of executive power, especially within the immigration context.” At Vox, Dara Lind breaks down the history of “the travel ban saga.” An episode of the Vox podcast Today, Explained focuses on the case. Commentary comes from the editorial board of the Boston Globe and Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress.
....

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 25, 2018, 7:12 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/wednesday-round-up-420/

[docgee]

1. This has to fail.

Wouldn't this give any president the right to travel ban any country, the entire world in fact, if he or she wishes?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Conservative justices voice skepticism that Trump lacks authority for immigrant ban

Courts & Law

Conservative justices voice skepticism that Trump lacks authority for immigrant ban

By Robert Barnes, Ann E. Marimow and Matt Zapotosky April 25 at 11:34 AM

[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court seemed skeptical Wednesday of arguments that President Trump lacks the authority to ban immigrants from certain majority-Muslim countries if he feels that it is necessary to protect the country.

Lower courts have struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s proclamation, the first of which was issued just a week after he took office in January 2017. But the conservative-leaning Supreme Court may be Trump’s best hope, and it gave the administration a boost by allowing the ban to go into effect in December while considering the challenges to it.
....

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was most active in advancing the notion that the president is privy to national security information that courts are ill-prepared to second guess. ... But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who always seem to occupy the pivotal position when conservative and liberal justices disagree, asked questions that only seem to support the president’s authority.
....

The challengers are led by the state of Hawaii, which said its citizens and educational institutions have suffered because of the ban. Conservative justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., peppered former Obama administration acting solicitor general Neal K. Katyal with questions on how the president had exceeded his lawful authority, given that Congress had granted the executive branch broad latitude to bar people’s entry to the U.S. ... Katyal argued that while the president had great power in immigration decisions, he would not effectively rewrite the law. The ban, he said, also violated the Constitution.
....

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow @scotusreporter

Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Follow @amarimow

Matt Zapotosky covers the Justice Department for The Washington Post's national security team. He has previously worked covering the federal courthouse in Alexandria and local law enforcement in Prince George's County and Southern Maryland. Follow @mattzap

UPDATE: Supreme Court conservatives skeptical of argument Trump lacks authority to implement travel ban

Link to tweet