This Is The Most Important Implication Of The SCOTUS Travel Ban Opinion

This Is The Most Important Implication Of The SCOTUS Travel Ban Opinion

Via Jack Goldsmith for Lawfare Many are debating the significance of today's Per Curiam Supreme Court opinion that granted the government’s petitions for certiorari and its stay applications in part.  Did the Court signal that it would uphold most elements of the decisions below, as some argued?  Did it signal the opposite–that it would reverse most elements of the appellate court rulings?  Will the case be moot by the fall?  I think it is very hard to predict how the Court will decid
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

4 thoughts on “This Is The Most Important Implication Of The SCOTUS Travel Ban Opinion

  1. “the president’s norm-defying behavior” equates to the president is a bully. If you cower or succumb to a bully, it will be difficult to impossible to overcome.

    – Murphy

  2. “I think it is very hard to predict how the Court will decide the case next Term, except perhaps to say that if it reaches the merits, the claims of foreign nationals who lack a relevant relationship with a person or entity in the United States aren’t looking so good.”

    You are wrong and right in that order. No prediction is required to read the stated position of the court at this time. People with bone fide reasons to be in the US have priority over those that do not. People from areas known to be hostile to the US will be blocked until their intentions can be verified. This is a reasonable position and one a competent President with competent advisors would have sought from the beginning.

    You are right that foreign nationals from hostile countries are going to receive increased vetting and examination – not only as they should, but as they already have in most cases since 911. This differs significantly with the Trump ban which targeted countries not currently demonstrably engaged against the US homeland, and exempted countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia who have had nationals represented in attacks on the US homeland – but which Trump apparently has some personal financial position involved making the Trump ban that much more odious, corrupt and incompetent.

    SCOTUS schooled the Trump WH on basic politics and legal strategies 101. They gave Trump the deference that the Executive office should get politically, but at the same time they essentially neutered his efforts for a blanket ban of any kind of any country. If this neutering was not going to stand in their final ruling – if there is one – there was no reason at all to make their opinions known now other than to be instructive to a bumbling Trump WH. This was a heads up to the th(d)ick headed Trump and his minions – “This is what you get, don’t try for more.” It’s really hard to logically read more purpose than this into SCOTUS pre-reviewing the case now. And if any group is focused on their purpose its SCOTUS.

    1. D, please allow me to modify my comment previous to your entry.
      “the president’s norm-defying behavior” equates to the president is a dickhead.
      Yes, that is so much more definitive! 🙂

      – Murphy

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.