Constitutional Law, Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Part of Immigration Order In Clear Victory For Trump

Supreme CourtIt appears that the Battle Royale over immigration is on.  The Supreme Court issued the following order: “We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.”  The Court also reversed in the state in the major religious clause case in Trinity Lutheran.

Here is the stay language: “We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions” blocking the implementation of the ban “to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Section 2(c).”  Section 2(c) deals with the suspension of entry from six countries and “foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Here is the money quote:

“An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the Court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

The parties will not be affected, but it is a victory for the Trump Administration in staying those who want to come without family in the country or other bona fide relationship.  As previously discussed, I believe that the odds favor the Administration in prevailing in the long run.

Here is the immigration order: Order

In Trinity Lutheran, the Eighth Circuit is reversed.  Roberts wrote: “the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”

Notably, the four split on a footnote that limited the impact of the decision: “This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”  Only four justices would sign off on the footnote: Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan.

 

Here is the decision: Trinity Lutheran

 

83 thoughts on “Supreme Court Reinstates Part of Immigration Order In Clear Victory For Trump”

  1. Pingback: Supreme Court Reinstates The Trump Travel Ban In Full Depending Appeal |

  2. Somehow my post to “Natacha” got deleted re smart independent blacks who won’t vote Demoncrat

    Tim Black (TBTV), LTMB, Nico House (Mi Casa es su Casa), robert brown (BOBTV), jamryl, etc.

  3. soo, the “esteemed” NYT published a list of Trump’s alleged lies (they have had to since make corrections) with no citations and no comments

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

    but blogger Dan has also published a list of Obama’s various misteps which he has given citations for and he allows comments.

    Give me a citizen journalist who is not beholden to any party or corporate interests anytime!!

    https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

  4. Pingback: VIDEO Supreme Travel Ban “CLEAR VICTORY” For The USA and President Trump | Reclaim Our Republic

  5. Complete win! Since it isn’t scheduled to be argued until October, Trump can have the ban fully implemented for the entire 90 days as he said and then declare it null and void making it moot and unreviewable by the SCOTUS. He can them implement the extreme vetting even for those migrants and refugees with connections to America and accomplish his purposes as Congress intended the President to be able to do. If need be, he can do another one and dare any of the radical circuits to enjoin over it in view of this Supreme Court smackdown order. Brilliant work.

    1. Excellent, and some sayTrump doesn’t succeed at anything. He doesn’t succeed at much of what they like, but he has been on target and moving despite Democratic opposition based upon irrational behavior like Nancy Pelosi’s hundreds of thousands will die and Republican opposition because he is somewhat of an outsider.

      Question for anyone. I wanted to look back on a past blog on the net regarding Otto W and North Korea, but could no longer find it. Do some of these postings get deleted? Why?

      1. An individual blogger on his own blog could delete it. I don’t think JT deletes any of his. Plus, I don’t think the blog search function checks comments. I could be wrong on that, but I think only the Titles and article itself are indexed.

        There is something called the wayback machine, which will sometimes have what you are after.

        https://archive.org/web/

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Thanks all.

          Squeeky, I finally found the posting, but it was a subtopic not the primary topic. Darren figured it out, but I read his note after it finally dawned on me what had happened. I wish I had read his note a couple of minutes earlier.

          Thanks for the archive address. That can be useful. I did note in my search of the archive that while the initial postings exist only part of the responses exist.

        1. I checked the blog posts for “Otto Warmbier” and did not find this within the content of any article listed or the ‘recycle bin’. Several comments have used that string.

  9. The SCOTUS is still far from clear. JT needs to attempt to clarify.

    Is the SCOTUS saying that if a terrorist seeking entry to the US has a “bona fide relationship” with someone already in the US or if the terrorist previously had been admitted to the US, that terrorist would be “excluded” from Trump’s Executive Order, claiming a “concrete hardship?”

    1. I believe what SCOTUS is saying is that a total, if temporary shutdown is fine for those who have no pre-existing connections to the US. So no connection, no eligibility even for consideration. For those with connections, they’re allowed to apply, be screened, etc., but entry is not automatic for anyone.

  10. What a great day at SCOTUS! First, the 9th Circuit and others get b*tch-slapped. Then, the Poor Lutherans get their playground upgraded! Of course, the two dissenters in Trinity were Democrats, who basically hate Christianity, and the whole idea of God and morality, to boot.

    But beyond that, poor kids who opt to go to private church schools might now get some help. Look out Democrats, maybe once they get some real education Blacks will stop voting for you!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Hey Dum Dum: all the Supreme Court did was partially dissolve a preliminary injunction. That’s not getting “b*tch-slapped”, something you apparently know a lot about. Why would you celebrate this anyway? The Muslim countries where the terrorists come from aren’t those under the “ban”, and there’s nothing about the ruling that constitutes “bitch-slapping” or anything even close. You really are stupid and show it every time you write something.

      The issue with the playground had nothing to do with “hating Christianity”, but strict construction of the Constitution, which forbids taxpayer dollars from supporting church sponsored programs. Apparently, people like Gorsuch only strictly construe the Constitution when it fits their preconceived values and ideals.

      Lastly, I’m not going to allow to stand your stupid, racist statement about blacks not voting Democratic when they “get some real education”. All blacks are stupid and uneducated? Is this what you are saying? You are the one who needs a “real education”, so I’ll try to help you out: Have you ever read what Dr. Joyce Brothers wrote about bottle blondes? As she has written, and others have noted, fake yellow hair does not make a woman more attractive. In fact, some of the world’s most beautiful women had dark hair, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Hedy Lamarr, Gene Tierney, Ida Lupino, Sophia Loren, Raquel Welch, and the list goes on. The yellow of fake blonde hair often highlights sallow skin tones, and makes the wearer skin less attractive than her natural hair color. So why do “gentlemen prefer blondes”, according to the psychologist? Because it appeals to their latent pedophilic tendencies. Usually only very young children have hair with natural pastel blonde tones, except for albinos and people from Scandanavian countries, whose hair does darken as they age. Now you have it, which also explains the Brazilian fad. Not a healthy thing. Misogynist and pedophililc. Sick and disgusting, just like you.

        1. Wow! That citation is supposed to “prove” that blacks are “stupid and uneducated”? Don’t you feel dirty and dumb by bleaching your hair? if you don’t, there’s something wrong with you. Doesn’t Dr. Brothers’ writing put Fox News into context?

          1. You asked, “Wow! That citation is supposed to “prove” that blacks are “stupid and uneducated”?”

            No. Not to you. Because you will never have a thought, idea, or concept that isn’t already set in concrete inside your skull. There is nothing that anybody can ever say to you, that will ever prove to you that you are wrong about anything. (Pssst. That is NOT a compliment. The same thing is true about a brick.)

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. You’re right, Squeeky. But bricks are not as toxic as our Natacha. I’ve started just skipping her spewed bile. Better for my blood pressure.

              1. I think a lot of these Leftists spew bile because their political beliefs are an integral part of them. More of those on the Right view their goodness as a function of what they do, while more on the Left view their goodness as a function of what they believe. I have read that this split began in the Romantic Age, when someone like Lord Byron could be a completely horrible cad and bounder, yet still cut a heroic Byronic figure because of who he was, and what he felt inside. (I am not sure I agree with that.)

                Therefore, when someone disagrees with them (Trump), it isn’t a just a philosophical matter as much as it is an assault on them personally, and their very identity. For example, Hodgkinson.

                This guy has some good ideas in that vein:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErKrYhbHbzg

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

      2. The Muslim countries where the terrorists come from aren’t those under the “ban”, and there’s nothing about the ruling that constitutes “bitch-slapping” or anything even close.

        Well gosh Natacha, how did the Obama administration come to identify those nations as well; throwing darts at a map? What you’ve stated is that no terrorists come from those banned countries. Your bias against Trump and his administration has so clearly clouded your judgment that nothing you say can be taken seriously.

      3. Natacha – as someone who comes from a family of Germanic blondes, I find your comments about blondes to be personally offensive. If you would like to meet me for a duel, I have just the spot. I think you are just jealous of the great scientific achievements of the great blondes of our age. BTW, never believe a psychology paper.

      4. You just know that Nasty was royally dumped by a man who left her for a dumb bleach blonde and she’s never gotten over it. Classic case of projection and unresolved wounds.

  11. Congress must now impeach the judges involved and the 9th Circus Court

    for corruption, conspiracy and usurpation as a result of their blatant, biased,

    subjective and political acts under the color of judicial authority.

    These judges and the 9th Circus may not engage in bias and politics with impunity.

    The Imperial Judiciary shall not “legislate from the bench.”

  12. Why not ban people from the Muslin countries where most of the terrorists came from–i.e., Saudi Arabia in the case of 911. Why? I’ll tell you why–Chump has business dealings with the Saudis, but not from the poorer Muslim countries affected by the “ban”. The Moron In Chief continues to undermine his own attorneys by continuing to use the phrase “travel ban”, which they have tried to argue is not appropriate.

    What is saddest about this post is that it claims this as a “victory” for the mental case who is occupying our White House, and that’s because his mental illness requires personal adulation and the appearance of “success”. Chump promised his supporters to ban all Muslims, but he didn’t do this–just those from countries where he doesn’t have any business interests. The latest terrorists are home-grown–they didn’t emigrate from any of these countries. Why not write about that?

    1. If you thought about why specific countries are on the list, it is painfully obvious. The listed countries are failed states without the infrastructure necessary to vet applicants, but that would require thought, instead of parroting your favorite liberal propaganda site.

        1. That word isn’t in your vocabulary. It’s not “painfully obvious” that the 911 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia–it’s an established fact. It isn’t “painfully obvious” that Chump has business dealings there, and UAE and elsewhere with Muslims he doesn’t want to ban. Our own homegrown terrorists came from the USA. This is just Chump pandering to the dumbasses who voted for him.

          2. So name the countries on the list, then explain how they are anything other than failed states. While you are at it, tell me what nations those 15 Saudis actually lived in for the 10 years prior to 2001. I can wait, but only if you have an intelligent thought instead of internet meme level crap

    2. Actually, the reason why these particular countries were chosen is so simple as to be obvious to anyone who’s looking for answers. The countries in question are currently in such a state of upheaval that they can offer little or no assistance in vetting the people who have filled out visa or refugee applications. This means that separating the wheat from the chaff is much more difficult than it would be from more settled countries, such as Saudi Arabia.

        1. Agreed,..
          Good point by both Robert and Jane.
          Also, the terrorism threat is not a static, unchanging situation best evaluated with the “rear view mirror” approach of focusing only on the nationalities of the terrorists involved in previous attacks.
          For example, none of those convicted in the 1993 WTC bombing were Saudis.
          They were from Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Palestine.
          Had there been increased travel restrictions proposed for citizens of Saudi Arabia before 9-11, it’s likely that we would have seen protests that Saudis were being unfairly targeted.
          The “logic” would be “why aren’t we targeting Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, and Kuwait?” when “it’s an established fact” that the 1993 terrorists were from other countries.

    3. Natacha,
      Your lying hypocritical self was silent when your demigod Jesus Obama BANNED VISAS TO IRAQ FOR SIX MONTHS, and ACCORDING TO ABC NEWS WELCOMED DOZENS OF POTENTIAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS AS “REFUGEES.”

      http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/muslim-ban-hypocrisy-left-said-nothing-when-obama-also-halted-visas/news-story/17c901096824ecd0a2e3a4d1e5ded377

      http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

  13. I agree with Jonathan that this is just the beginning of a Battle Royale. As the DHS / State puts into practice a vetting program which chooses Secular Muslims and turns away Theocratic-Sharia Muslims, the “resistance” will want to argue that such a policy goes against the “establishment of religion” clause.

    However, it’s hard to remember when any time in American history when an offshoot of major religion X issued Fatwas calling for all true believers of religion X to kill and subjugate Americans as a religious duty.
    I predict the Trump Administration (or its successor) will be successful at the Supreme Court in arguing the power of the USG to fight an ideological war on a self-declared enemy who claims to be fighting America based on religious motives. In this manner, the Establishment Clause will undergo an important refinement, whereby the “religious zeal” loophole is closed for those seeking to aggressively convert America to Islam over decades using the Establishment Clause as a weapon.

  14. People of all faiths are allowed to come if they are in school.working,or visiting relatives among other things.

    It’s the among other things that has proven problematic. IIRC, there was a group of 19 men prior to 2001 that among other things were in flight school prior to their execution of other things on September 11th, 2001.

        1. Too punitive to the refugees from the counties that we have and are currently helping to destroy while ignoring Saudi Arabia. Doubt we will agree about the Iraqi and Syrian refugees……

          1. I don’t believe our immigration policy is restrictive enough. We cannot afford the domestic policies for our current inhabitants as it is, and that’s not even addressing the growing percentage of our immigrant/refugee population that refuse to assimilate. If our western allies in Europe are hell-bent on committing national suicide to satisfy among other things their declining population issues, then it would be at a minimum prudent to learn from their experience before setting policy. There is a reason our states are considered the laboratories of democracy. Why not learn what policies work at the state level before impacting the entire nation on a federal level. In that same vein, would it not be reasonable to observe the impact immigration/refugee policies have on our allies before adopting those same policies?

            This video obviously is intended to strike fear but there is no doubt the evidence is real.

            https://youtu.be/nkDfqLz6R8o

      2. It’s because the Saudi kingdom is cooperating closely with the US to stop radical jihadist terrorists. Did you notice that the Saudis joined the ideological war? Why do you think Qatar has been isolated by the other Gulf States? Did you see the list of demands? Ending support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbolah was high on the list. Also, closing down the Al Jezeera Arabian TV channel (not Al Jezeera English), which has become a mouthpiece for Islamism.

        1. frankly already knew that. Just being annoying by pretending (?) to be stupid.

          1. But, Frankly is using the new meme phrase “countries we are helping destroy.” I think she earns extra points from Correct the Record. At one time, the phrase “man child” used in Trump comments was a real paycheck bumper. But, things change.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            (Note to Self: See if Kochs have any interest in bonus points for every time “violence mongering” is used in comments about Democrats???)

              1. No one is destroying Yemen but Yemenis, who have antique tribal quarrels.

        2. Qatar, like every other Muslim-majority country where Trump has actual or potential business interests, was exempted. Do you think Trump should add Qatar to the list?

      3. Because it has to do with the ability to verify passports and papers. This was the list compiled by the Obama administration.

      4. The 9/11 hijackers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Neither country is suffering a muslim insurgency as we speak and neither government is complicit with Islamic terrorism (nor were they in 2001).

  15. I read the majority opinion, and it rebukes the 9th Circuit for mind-reading sinister intentions from campaign speech quotes (taken out of historical context of jihadist terrorist attacks in San Bernadino and Orlando), substituting these speculations about anti-Muslim animus for the explicit statement of purpose in the Exec. Order. This signals in advance that SCOTUS will not accept these activist imaginations of sinister intent as proper Court reasoning about the law.

    In this case, we are seeing an end to the 50-year epoch of activist lawmaking using the Federal Courts as an alternate legislature.

  16. The stay was denied as it pertains to those with a legitimate connection to the US, and only three justices supported a complete stay. That’s a big deal.

    1. It’s not a big deal, for in every bit of legislation involving people there are always exceptions that will be granted even if the stay didn’t exist. The individual has to prove his contacts and that by itself aids in confirming a that a passport or papers are legitimate.

      1. Doesn’t already having to prove a bona fide connection make the point that it’s unnecessary to have placed a temporary ban on this group?

        1. Steve, are you saying that the whole group of 7 countries already have a bona fide connection? The ban exempts those individuals with bona fide connections. But yes the ban needs to be on the countries as a whole because they do not vet their outbound travelers for terrorist connections.
          It’s really not that hard to understand, if one wishes to understand.

        2. I can’t tell if you mean group or subgroup.

          If the former: The proof of who a person was could not be accurately assessed.
          If the latter, those with proven bonafide relationships: That is essentially my point, but recognize it is not the obligation of the US to disprove, it is the obligation of the alien to prove.

          The order easily separates out those causing the greatest problems and offers the citizens of the United States a degree of additional protection.

    2. Given that this is an interim decision on a TRO, I don’t see much of a precedent being established giving foreigners lacking visa status “privileged status” (to be considered for a visa) by virtue of having a relative or educational / business connection to a US entity. And, in October (and later), the 6-nation 120-day moratorium will have expired, and new extreme vetting procedures will likely replace it as the target of liberal challengers. Whoever the “plaintiffs” are for the post-extreme-vetting challenge, it is dubious that they will have “standing” (denial of visa permissions are not reviewable by Federal Court). Today’s decision regarding foreigners with a “relationship” does not in any way change that longstanding position of the Courts.

        1. True, though in this case it is irrelevant.

          A majority did not sign on to footnote 3 in Trinity thus creating what will be the most far reaching effect of the opinion. As Sotomayor noted in dissent:

          “In concluding that Missouri’s Article
          I, §7, cannot withstand strict scrutiny, the Court describes
          Missouri’s interest as a mere “policy preference for
          skating as far as possible from religious establishment
          concerns.” Ante, at 14. The constitutional provisions of
          thirty-nine States—all but invalidated today—”

          This invalidation of the “Blaine Amendments” will quite possible open the door to numerous things most certainly school vouchers. Though allowed by the Court these were blocked by the many state constitutions. No more.

          Somewhere in the Department of Education there is a woman with a smile on her face.

          1. Are you speaking of the dumb, bottle blonde who doesn’t even understand basic educational concepts and policies? If so, she should read the results of 2 studies that came out today–voucher students actually backslide on math and language arts after leaving public schools, but that doesn’t matter to Betsy Sue, because they’ll get a healthy dose of religion crammed down their throats and that’s what really counts.

            1. Natcha, seriously, you cannot continue to live your life this way. Your soul is rotting from the inside out.

            2. Natacha, what have you ever done or said that would allow people to believe you understood ‘basic educational concepts and policies’, much less were capable of critiquing anyone else’s?

Comments are closed.