The Travel Ban is now in SCOTUS' hands

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Final arguments were submitted today.....we'll see how soon and which way they vote.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Won't this take like a year to get a ruling?

I think this is just an application to lift the lower court bans, not a final ruling on the matter.  If so, it shouldn't take long.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Won't this take like a year to get a ruling?

I think this is just an application to lift the lower court bans, not a final ruling on the matter.  If so, it shouldn't take long.

And the Supreme Court does have a fall term, so we could get a final ruling this year.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Won't this take like a year to get a ruling?

I think this is just an application to lift the lower court bans, not a final ruling on the matter.  If so, it shouldn't take long.

And the Supreme Court does have a fall term, so we could get a final ruling this year.

Even if the underlying court holds are lifted, the final constitutionality of it is going to be argued, yes.

[Person Man]

Won't this take like a year to get a ruling?

I think this is just an application to lift the lower court bans, not a final ruling on the matter.  If so, it shouldn't take long.

And the Supreme Court does have a fall term, so we could get a final ruling this year.

Even if the underlying court holds are lifted, the final constitutionality of it is going to be argued, yes.

Wouldn't the 90 days be finished if they stay the injunctions? The effect would be that the Court may decide before it decides.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Won't this take like a year to get a ruling?

I think this is just an application to lift the lower court bans, not a final ruling on the matter.  If so, it shouldn't take long.

And the Supreme Court does have a fall term, so we could get a final ruling this year.

Even if the underlying court holds are lifted, the final constitutionality of it is going to be argued, yes.

Wouldn't the 90 days be finished if they stay the injunctions? The effect would be that the Court may decide before it decides.

Yes, but then the case just shifts to a question of whether future presidents (or Trump again at some future point) could write similar orders.

[Rjjr77]

It should be viewed as legal, I don't actually agree with it, but it is 100% within the rights of the executive branch

[Sir Mohamed]

It should be found unconstitutional. Same as all other courts have all ruled. I'm curious how Trump will react if the SC rules not in his favor.

[SoLongAtlas]

They will find it constitutional.

"(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 212f of the INA

It will be argued against on equal protection grounds but I don't the justices would give a more liberal viewing of EP to non-US citizens. More likely is that if they strike it down, they strike it down on the fact that it isn't all or nothing and picks and chooses from only a subset of Muslim nations but again, under 212, it is within his rights to do that.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It should be found unconstitutional. Same as all other courts have all ruled. I'm curious how Trump will react if the SC rules not in his favor.

Is that what the other courts found, or did those seeking an injunction simply meet the bare bones level of "harm" it could cause their state? 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh and SCOTUS won't find that campaign/political rhetoric is a factor on whether these bans are proper.

[emailking]

It should be found unconstitutional. Same as all other courts have all ruled. I'm curious how Trump will react if the SC rules not in his favor.

Is that what the other courts found, or did those seeking an injunction simply meet the bare bones level of "harm" it could cause their state? 

That and the fact they thought it was likely to be ruled unconstitutional. But no, no court has actually ruled it unconstitutional yet.

[SoLongAtlas]

You know reading this http://myattorneyusa.com/scope-and-history-of-section-212f-presidential-authority-to-suspendrestrict-entry-by-proclamation it occurs to me that the SCOTUS case will be argued on the scope and definition of "detrimental" not on the merits of some vs. all or religious ban or not. That is the deciding factor.

Do residents of those countries, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Somalia pose a grave and detrimental risk to the national security of the United States? - AG

[Dereich]

You know reading this http://myattorneyusa.com/scope-and-history-of-section-212f-presidential-authority-to-suspendrestrict-entry-by-proclamation it occurs to me that the SCOTUS case will be argued on the scope and definition of "detrimental" not on the merits of some vs. all or religious ban or not. That is the deciding factor.

Do residents of those countries, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Somalia pose a grave and detrimental risk to the national security of the United States? - AG

That's exactly what the issue will NOT be. The main reason SCOTUS has been willing to give so much deference to the other branches on immigration in the past is the Court's unwillingness to substitute its own judgement for the other branches on issues (like national security here) clearly within the scope of those branches. In the main case, the Court won't try to nitpick the administration's judgment of what is necessary for national security unless they can find an unconstitutionally erroneous motive behind that decision.

But its not that relevant for this initial case; all they have to fulfill here are the preliminary injunction requirements:

1. Plaintiff will suffer irreversible harm if this isn't blocked until the main case is over (easy to fulfill, just have to prove some right is being violated)
2. Putting up this injunction won't create even worse harm than not having an injunction at all (still pretty easy; the government can't really show harm here)
3. With what we know at the moment, its more likely than not that the Plaintiff could win the case on its merits. (Hardest, but it hasn't been for the other Courts and, with only the preliminary information, seems doable)