Donald Trump’s administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate its ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries.
In the late hours of Thursday night, the Trump administration requested that the Supreme Court review the recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that refused to let the president’s Muslim ban go forward. This long timeframe is especially detrimental to the government’s case, as it could undermine the administration’s argument that the order was motivated by urgent threats to national security.
The first step for the court will be to ask the various challengers, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Hawaii, to file responses to the Trump administration’s application.
At least five votes are needed on the nine-justice court in order to grant a stay. One such application met with success when in February 2016 the court granted on a 5-4 vote a request by states and industry groups to block President Barack Obama’s climate regulations. The justices include Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee who was confirmed by the Senate in April. It is unclear if the current case could be preserved if the order is allowed to expire without the Supreme Court ruling. The justices usually go on a summer recess at the end of June after having issued their opinions in all the pending cases.
“The courts below openly second-guessed the president’s finding that those conditions and risks provided the basis for”.
“But whatever one’s views, the precedent set by this case for the judiciary’s proper role in reviewing the president’s national-security and immigration authority will transcend this debate, this Order, and this constitutional moment”, Wall wrote, according to Reuters.
President Donald Trump speaks about the USA role in the Paris climate change accord, Thursday, June 1, 2017, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. The plaintiffs are challenging not only Section 2 of the order – the restriction on travel – but another section of the order pertaining to refugees.
He cited Trump’s campaign rhetoric and statements made when he signed the executive orders and said courts had an obligation to look beyond their seemingly neutral language.
The filings also strenuously protested the trial judges’ use of public statements made by President Trump – both as a candidate and after taking office – that indicated he was imposing immigration restrictions to accomplish a “Muslim ban”.
Trump’s administration is battling temporary injunctions on the travel restrictions on two separate fronts through cases that originated in Hawaii and Maryland. When a major presidential initiative is ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, a review by the Supreme Court nearly always follows. A San Francisco-based appeals court is now considering the Hawaii case.
To resolve that question, the Supreme Court would have to decide whether the president has the final word on the rules for admitting foreigner visitors, immigrants and refugees.
On May 25, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump’s March 6 executive order is unconstitutional because it discriminates against Muslims. The first one, issued in January, was quickly halted by courts after the initial implementation of the directive prompted chaos at various USA airports.