Supreme Court Restores Trump Travel Ban After Ninth Circuit Ruling

Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy restored President Donald Trump’s travel ban after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the admission of more refugees.  With the Court set to hear arguments on the issue (after lifting prior injunctions placed on the Trump order), the decision of the Ninth Circuit seemed at odds with the prior ruling of the Court.  The “Administrative Hold” will leave this matter to the Court for October arguments.

 

The Administration has maintained that only parents, children, siblings and in-laws constitute close relatives for the purposes of the exception to the ban. However, judges Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez held that “Stated simply, the government does not offer a persuasive explanation for why a mother-in-law is clearly a bona fide relationship, in the Supreme Court’s prior reasoning, but a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or cousin is not.”  I happen to agree that the division of family relationships to exclude grandparents is dubious.  However, this is a question reserved to the Court.  Moreover, the Ninth Circuit did not stop there.  It  also held that working with a resettlement agency meets the standard for a “bona fide” relationship with an entity in the United States. That would dramatically increase the exception.

220px-Anthony_Kennedy_official_SCOTUS_portrait
Justice Kennedy

Since the Supreme Court ordered the ban to go into effect pending argument on June 26ht, it is odd that the Ninth Circuit would go ahead and issue such an order.  The question now is whether the travel ban case will be viewed as moot when the argument rolls around given the 90 days period referenced in the order, as discussed earlier.  

 

The case is Trump v. Hawaii, 16-1540.

28 thoughts on “Supreme Court Restores Trump Travel Ban After Ninth Circuit Ruling

  1. I noted the case referred to was US vs. Hawaii. Did no one notice Hawaii allowed three immigrants total? Just what the hey is their beef? Or is it just a couple of people delivering a Soros Pay Check and one black robed dictator wannabe?

  2. Growers, called producers around here, need lots of assistance during harvest season. While they go through lots of money every year, little of it remains as a “salary” for all their effort. Even less, I suppose, goes to the field hands.

  3. I noted the case referred to was US vs. Hawaii. Did no one notice Hawaii allowed three immigrants total? Just what the hey is their beef? Or is it just a couple of people and one black robed dictator wannabe?

  4. “Legislation from the bench” and “executive overreach” violate fundamental law.
    _______________________________________________________________

    To preserve a limited Constitution,

    courts must void acts contrary to the Constitution.

    If not, presidents, justices et al. acting with powers, may do what is not authorized and what is prohibited.
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    “…that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    Alexander Hamilton –

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    • Courts do not have the authority to officially “void” laws, but they can certainly voice their opinion regarding those laws constitutionality. Art III. Hamilton was speaking terms of morally voiding unconstitutional acts. Of course, today most mistakenly believe that the judiciary is supreme in all constitutional matters It is not. The ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional are the People, and this was the intention of the Foudners. Today we have far too many unaccountable delphic oracles who routinely flout Art III. This must change. I for one do not want to be ruled by 9 unelected, unaccountable, black-robed judicial oligarchs.

      • LIMITS on the Constitution are preserved by the COURTS executing their DUTY to VOID all acts CONTRARY to the MANIFEST TENOR of the Constitution.

        “Legislating from the bench” is dereliction of duty.

  5. I predicted way back when that the greedy refugee resettlement industry would push for extending the definition of immediate family members. I also KNEW they would try to convince the court that an “assurance” by the resettlement agency would be sufficient grounds to bring in more refugees. Glad Kennedy had the clarity to reverse the leftist enablers at the 9th. For the refugee resettlement industry, It’s nearly all about MONEY, folks–NOT NOT about selfless, loving compassion for the downtrodden. The more refugees resettlement programs receive, the more money they get from the feds. The funding is based on a per capita formula. Believe me. I know.

      • Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services are the huge beneficiaries of federal money for resettling refugees. The Lutherans were the org that brought all the Somalis to Minneapolis. My mother is Irish Catholic and my father a Lutheran, so I used to contribute to these organizations, but I haven’t given either one a dime after finding out what they do with my money.

        • So, what are these “greedy organizations” doing with the money? Buying limousines and mansions? Or maybe helping unfortunate people.

          • Or funding a bloated bureaucracy of social workers, managers, administrators and directors who make a nice living off filling the U.S. social service and welfare rolls with foreigners, rather than helping impoverished Americans whose needs aren’t so generously funded by the beleaguered taxpayers.

          • No, Jay. But the federal grants are used to pay salaries and program overhead expenses–not just direct assistance to the downtrodden refugees. It has become a big business where money–not scriptural imperatives–is king. Since programs receive fed $ on a refugee per capita basis, the more refugees a program welcomes into its community, the more $ it receives. With that money, basic needs of refugees are covered for up to 6 months. Anything not spent on refugees diverted to program overhead. Obviously, a good budgeter will always come out ahead. Of course, quality of refugee services varies program to program, some being more pecuniarily inclined than others, and some have a community volunteer base which enable the program to keep more of the direct assistance. Anyway, that’s the way it is. Not pretty. It’s a big private-federal partnership dominated by greed.

          • Well, Catholic Charities USA, and other Christian groups have received over $1 billion for refugee resettlement. They get paid a lot of money to bring the refugees over, settle them in, give them money for a few months, and then have nothing more to do with them. It’s kind of a mixed bag – really nice people who want opportunities and those who are not so nice.

            I was raised Catholic, but had a severe problem with the entrenched pedophilia and the global pattern of shuffling off pedophiles to unsuspecting and unwarned parishes, silencing victims, and protecting the abuser instead of the innocent lambs in their care. I’ll always feel like the Catholic Church is as familiar and nostalgic as a childhood home, but I’m still pretty upset with the organization.

            The reason that this is relevant is that the ubiquitous lawsuits, which are still popping up (see Guam) necessitated the selling off of significant Church assets. The archdioceses were hurting for money. So this is a significant revenue stream that the Church relies on to pay staff and keep their charitable operations running. Again, this is a mixed bag – there is some good work done, and it’s also helping ease the strain of paying off massive settlements for the victims of the pedophiles they protected. I support charities, including Catholic Charities. But, again, this pricks my conscience that the Church avoided some financial pain through this Big Business. I have to admit that I want them to spend some time in financial purgatory. Maybe it’s not fair that the employees of the charities would suffer because of the behavior of the Holy See on down, but still. It’s my emotional response to the never ending scandal and I’m torn.

            I also find it ironic that the hard Left despises Christians, supports massive numbers of refugees, and’s it’s mainly Christian organizations that are settling refugees, caring for them, and profiting from it. It could only get more ironic if it was “the Russians”.

            On the other hand, I do want good people helped and protected around the world, especially women and children, who are the most vulnerable to war, poverty, plague, and natural disasters. I also am concerned about creating another Belgium here, where Jews are afraid to walk and which produces more terrorists than Syria. It’s definitely an area where we need to tread carefully. I want to save the Yazidi girls enslaved by ISIS, not invite ISIS over. I want to save the Boko Haram enslaved girls, not invite Boko Haram. I want to evacuate each and every little 5 year old girl scheduled for female genital mutilation. I want to save women from forced arranged marriages and abuse. I want to save the apostates, the government critics, the poets, the political cartoonists, the translators who helped our military, and anyone else who would fold right in to our culture. So, to me, my personal preference would be more of a case by case basis rather than taking a wide swath of people from a region infamous for human rights abuses, abuses of women, violence against non Muslims and gays, and just hoping that Syria kept accurate records on them. This is definitely an issue fraught with emotion and demanding that we examine our conscience for where our moral compass points. A difficult issue.

  6. The Executive has been politicized & partisan for many years (witness the Obama bureaucracy, eg Lois Lerner).

    Congress is by definition partisan.

    Now the judiciary is become much more obvious in their partisan rulings.

    The Supreme Court’s standing was already hanging by a thread – witness Kelso; a few more rulings like the 9th’s and the judiciary will forfeit its claim to be the ultimate arbiter of our society.

  7. Meanwhile, I read that a larger number of new residents arrived last month and many more are on the way – some to help in seasonal crops harvesting. BIG agriculture: another special interest group that benefits from low-wage illegals.

    Illegal immigration will end whenever special interest groups are outlawed…sometime in the future. Maybe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s