Published: Thu, April 26, 2018
Global Media | By Abel Hampton

Trump travel ban looks poised for Supreme victory

Trump travel ban looks poised for Supreme victory

The justices heard oral arguments Wednesday morning for the hotly anticipated case, which comes after lower courts struck down two previous versions of the travel ban and attempted to stall the third.

The administration again appealed, and the president lashed out.

The U-S Supreme Court has heard a challenge by the State of Hawaii to President Donald Trump's ban on travellers from mostly-Muslim countries. The ban's challengers nearly certainly need one of those two justices to strike down the ban on travelers from several mostly Muslim countries.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the ban by the end of June. Katyal is representing the challengers.

Kennedy answered, "That indicates there will be a reassessment".

What do you think about the president's travel ban? U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a statement on Wednesday cited the president's 'broad discretion and authority to protect the United States from all foreign and domestic threats'.

Khizr Khan, a gold star father who's been critical of Donald Trump, meets with U.S. Sen. Once taking office the President wasted no time in erected his Travel Ban, which was met with heavy resistance by the Federal Courts. The policy has been fully in effect since December, but this is the first time the justices are considering whether it violates immigration law or the Constitution.

The current version is indefinite and now applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

This time, it included five of the Muslim-majority countries from the second ban, while adding Chad, North Korea and some government officials from Venezuela.

Francisco stressed that Trump's basis for the travel ban was a result of concerns about national security and not personal beliefs.

But some of the more liberal justices questioned the administration's arguments that the ban was purely about national security.

The challengers, backed by a diverse array of supporting legal briefs, have said that Trump is flouting immigration law by trying to keep more than 150 million people, the vast majority of them Muslim, from entering the country.

She told him she doubted that the president has "the authority to do more than Congress has already decided is adequate" under immigration law. Congress should seriously consider it for judges who are irresponsibly abusing their positions on the bench to do whatever it takes to keep the nation's duly elected president from actually governing. "And it was also noted that he had not made those comments since being sworn in as president". "You would say whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant?"

"What if the military advisers tell the president that, in their judgment, the president ought to order an air strike against Syria?"

Hearing oral arguments in the blockbuster case, the court grappled with whether Trump has the legislative and constitutional powers to ban travelers from certain countries. "When this first came out, right away it just signaled this is just one step down a very slippery slope to taking away someone's civil rights". "The population of the predominantly Muslim countries on this list make up about 8 percent of the world's Muslim population", said Justice Samuel Alito in the recording.

Opponents, led at the high court by Hawaii, say Trump overstepped his authority and was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

The granting fewer visas to immigrants, and admitting fewer refugees from around the world.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether, under the plaintiff's argument, any targeted action against a majority-Muslim country could be seen as discriminatory. "We can't let this kind of executive order stand without pushing back".

Like this: