US Supreme Court takes up Trump travel ban

  • US Supreme Court takes up Trump travel ban

US Supreme Court takes up Trump travel ban

And that's rare - nearly no one bypasses the appellate court to head to the Supreme Court, for good reason: by the time a case makes it to the Supreme Court, it's been vetted by multiple federal court judges who've written majority and dissenting opinions on the issue that would inform the justices.

The ban places varying levels of restrictions on foreign nationals from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.

Today, Governor Kay Ivey appointed Circuit Judge Brad Mendheim to fill a vacancy on the Alabama Supreme Court created by the resignation of Justice Glenn Murdock.

The Republican president has said the policy is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants.

They also said the ban does not adequately explain why people from certain countries are a danger: "The Proclamation makes no finding that nationality alone renders entry of this broad class of individuals a heightened security risk or that current screening processes are inadequate".

A week after the injunction was issued, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said it would accept renewal applications from DACA recipients, and the Mission Asset Fund tweeted that it would pay the $495 renewal fee on behalf of Dreamers for whom the fee posed a hardship.

In November, he shared on Twitter anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure.

"We have always known this case would ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court", said Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin. As a judge, he has presided over a large variety of trials, including death penalty cases, felony cases and civil cases. He added that the third order had been the result of "an extensive, worldwide review by multiple government agencies".

The countries on the list are those that do not share that information or present "other heightened risk factors", Francisco said.

"The immigration laws do not grant the President this power", Katyal said. The law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality.

The action follows last month's ruling by the federal appeals court in San Francisco that struck down the travel ban. Oral argument was scheduled for early October, and the court permitted the government to implement the ban -at least for would-be travelers who didn't already have some connection to the United States - until it could rule on the dispute.

The petition is highly unusual, as the government bypassed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and asked the justices to hear the case in the near future - but the administration argues that the move is justifiable, as the lower court order "requires the government to sanction indefinitely an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by almost 700,000 aliens". They also agreed to take up a fourth question, broached by Hawaii: whether the September 24 order violates the Constitution's establishment clause, which (among other things) bars the government from favoring one religion over another.