To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE
U.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Most of the President's Temporary Travel Ban, Will Hear Case First in the FallThe decision is a victory for the president, but as Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch correctly pointed out, the Supreme Court's decision still leaves an enormous loophole through which the nation's security can be compromised... [Charisma News] Typically, court panels will issue what is known as a per curiam opinion or order when there is little room to argue about the merits of a case, and the court holds a unanimous opinion. (Photo via Wikipedia) So, at first, it seemed that's what the U.S. Supreme Court did when it allowed President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order to go into effect, except in cases where a person has a legitimate reason for entering the country. The court also scheduled to have the case heard during the first session of the new term that begins in the fall. Monday was the last day of the current term for the high court. The court's order states, in part: In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]... For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member ... clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the executive order]. But upon further review, it seems the court was clearly divided. Associate justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined together in their own opinion, which was authored by Thomas. It states: I agree with the court that the preliminary injunctions entered in these cases should be stayed, although I would stay them in full. The decision whether to stay the injunctions is committed to our discretion ... but our discretion must be "guided by sound legal principles" ... The two "most critical" factors we must consider in deciding whether to grant a stay are "1. whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits" and "2. whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay" ... Where a party seeks a stay pending certiorari, as here, the applicant satisfies the first factor only if it can show both "a reasonable probability that certiorari will be granted" and "a significant possibility that the judgment below will be reversed." When we determine that those critical factors are satisfied, we must "balance the equities" by "explor[ing] the relative harms to applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large" ... Reasonable minds may disagree on where the balance of equities lies as between the government and respondents in these cases. It would have been reasonable, perhaps, for the court to have left the injunctions in place only as to respondents themselves. But the court takes the additional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals abroad. No class has been certified, and neither party asks for the scope of relief that the court today provides. "[I]njunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs" in the case ... because a court's role is "to provide relief" only "to claimants ... who have suffered, or will imminently suffer, actual harm" ... In contrast, it is the role of the "political branches" to "shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution." Moreover, I fear that the court's remedy will prove unworkable. Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt—whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country ... The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a "bona fide relationship," who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid [the executive order]" ... And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two district courts whose initial orders in these cases this court has now—unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected. The decision is a victory for the president, but as Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch correctly pointed out, the Supreme Court's decision still leaves an enormous loophole through which the nation's security can be compromised. Further, the decision appears to infringe upon the very separation of powers the Trump administration has been attempting to rectify by going to the high court.
To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE Other Recent Articles from Breaking Christian News West Virginia Student Helps Pass Bill to Teach Intelligent Design: 'This Is a God-Fearing State' Free Speech Resolution Allows Satanic Temple 'Invocation' Sparking Chaos at a Michigan Board Meeting Paris Olympics Will Feature a 'Pride House' to 'Celebrate' Homosexual and Gender-Confused Athletes Video Captures Drag Queen Indoctrinating Kids, Getting Them to Chant... 'Free Palestine' Who's Funding the Anti-Israel, Pro-Palestine Protests? DEVELOPING: Harvey Weinstein Rape Conviction Overturned By New York Appellate Court Supreme Court Puts Final Nail in Coffin of Effort to Block Trump from Ballot in Arizona Courageous: Worship Leader Sean Feucht Prepares to Confront Anti-Israel Evil, Darkness, and Horror New Emails Expose Biden's Connection to Whistleblower Who Got Trump Impeached Tennessee Passes Bill Letting Teachers Carry Guns at Schools Transgender Movement Is Losing Its Influence on Social Media to Shut Down Debate Ohio Attorney General Breaks Down Leftist Legal 'Trick' to Block GOP Efforts to Protect Kids Nearly 2,000 Minnesota Students, 15 Teachers Walk Out of LGBTQ 'Indoctrination' Lesson 'Just a Disaster': Biden's Title IX Rule Empowers LGBTQ Movement, Erases Women and Justice United For Israel March Happening on the Columbia University Campus, April 25th Search the Articles Archives |
All articles on this site and emails from BCN are copyrighted property of Breaking Christian News. Permission is given to link to, or share a BCN story if proper attribution is given to both the original writer and summarizer of the story. Breaking Christian News 2005-2019. All Rights Reserved.
Breaking Christian News is a division of Elijah List Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: Articles and links, as well as the source articles linked to; do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Breaking Christian News.
Home | Store | Subscribe | Facebook | Article Archive |