Will Supreme Court rescue Trump's immigration travel ban?

[Draggingtree]

USA TODAY

Will Supreme Court rescue Trump's immigration travel ban?

Richard Wolf , USA TODAYPublished 12:09 p.m. ET May 11, 2017 | Updated 20 hours ago

WASHINGTON — As President Trump's effort to ban some travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries heads to yet another federal appeals court next week, the federal government's lawyers can't be blamed for looking further ahead — to the Supreme Court.

Nearly all the judges who have heard the administration claim the right to restrict immigration from countries it deems as security risks have said the travel ban discriminates against immigrants based on their religion. As proof, they have cited statements Trump made during the election campaign.

The 4th Circuit and 9th Circuit appeals courts now considering the case are likely to agree, based on their makeup — both have a majority of judges nominated by Democratic presidents. But the Supreme Court may be another story.

Chief Justice John Roberts is a strong proponent of executive authority, particularly in foreign affairs. Justice Samuel Alito has spent his entire career working for the government. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a 2015 immigration case that a "legitimate and bona fide" reason for denying entry to the United States is sufficient. Justice Neil Gorsuch is a stickler for the written text of statutes — and banning Muslims isn't mentioned in Trump's executive order.  

[Draggingtree]

 

Amy Howe Reporter and Independent Contractor

Posted Tue, May 16th, 2017 11:55 am

Ninth Circuit hears oral argument on Trump travel ban

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard oral argument yesterday in a challenge to the executive order signed by President Donald Trump on March 6. Colloquially known as the “travel ban,” the order temporarily suspended new visas for travelers from six Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – as well as the admission of refugees into the United States. Yesterday’s oral argument came just one week after the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit heard oral argument in a similar challenge; in both cases, federal trial courts had blocked the government from implementing the order. Last week’s argument suggested that there was a majority on the 4th Circuit to uphold the Maryland judge’s order putting the ban on hold; yesterday’s argument before the 9th Circuit panel could lead to a comparable result, although perhaps on a different theory than that relied on by the Hawaii trial court and also with a narrower scope.

The case before the 9th Circuit yesterday was filed by the state of Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh, a U.S. citizen of Egyptian descent who serves as the head of a Hawaii mosque and is hoping to bring his mother-in-law, a Syrian national, to the United States.       http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/ninth-circuit-hears-oral-argument-trump-travel-ban/