SC allows partial travel ban pending appeal

[EnglishPete]

So a half a**ed reinstatement of the banned that only covers people who have no ties in this country? Well that's the closest thing to a "win" Trump has gotten

...

Yes clearly I'm devastated that a partial part of the ban that doesn't effect regular muslims wanting to live here will be in place until the October hearing

Most 'regular Muslims' (like most regular Hindus, most regular Buddhists and most regular Christians for that matter) don't have any connections to the US. If someone is applying for a work visa or a student visa or they have relatives in the US then the government will have access to at least some background information to see if they're dodgy characters. For others the US government may not have access to any such information and letting people through from terrorist infested barbarian hell holes without any chance to do a background check isn't a smart idea.

At the moment we have huge numbers of unvetted immigrants pouring into Europe from various ... holes and I have to say most of the people coming in ain't skilled workers and they ain't scholars either.

[EnglishPete]

Not so someone who enters into a relationship sim- ply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

Its almost as if the Supreme Court thinks that many of the "nonprofit groups" are SJW political activist groups masquerading as charities and that they are so dishonest and prone to cheating that it has to specifically spell out that they're not allowed to cheat.

[EnglishPete]

Since the original travel ban only lasted 90 days, where do they get the authority to keep this one section active until October? Might we see this partial ban enforced until they decide the case next year only to then have the entire ban last 90 days from then until it expires if it is upheld?

It was suspended very quickly so presumably the argument would be that the clock on the 90 days stopped when the suspension was ordered and started again today.

[EnglishPete]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

And the 4th, and probably all the other courts if they took it up. What will be embarrassing will be Trump's reaction when the court rules 6-3 against him in the fall though...

What ruling? The cases being brought were objecting to the allegedly discriminatory nature of the 90 day six country part of the executive order. The 90 days will be up by the time the Court comes back in October. SCOTUS doesn't hear moot cases. The government lawyers will say this case is moot, SCOTUS will agree, that will be it.

Today's ruling is the only ruling there will be on this apart from the decision to dismiss the case as moot in October.

[EnglishPete]

It's incredibly embarrassing to the ninth circuit that the supreme court unanimously ruled against them.

And the 4th, and probably all the other courts if they took it up. What will be embarrassing will be Trump's reaction when if the court rules 6-3 against him in the fall though...

Do you really think there is a chance that Kennedy and Roberts will side with Trump here?

You mean when his lawyers say 'you don't need to hear this case anymore as the 90 days are up'? You think they won't agree with that? Why not?

[EnglishPete]

Of course the 120 day freeze on refugees and the limiting of refugee numbers to 50,000 in 2017 parts of the executive order will still be in force in October.

Since they are separate from the 90 day part that people apparently find the most objectionable and since the cases being dealt with by Scotus relate to the allegedly discriminatory nature of that part then those cases being moot by the time the Court comes back there is no reason for Scotus to offer any further ruling on any part of the order. It was partially reinstated today and that will likely be their last ruling on this particular executive order.

[EnglishPete]

Of course the 120 day freeze on refugees and the limiting of refugee numbers to 50,000 in 2017 parts of the executive order will still be in force in October.

Since they are separate from the 90 day part that people apparently find the most objectionable and since the cases being dealt with by Scotus relate to the allegedly discriminatory nature of that part then those cases being moot by the time the Court comes back there is no reason for Scotus to offer any further ruling on any part of the order. It was partially reinstated today and that will likely be their last ruling on this particular executive order.

The Court will hear a moot case if the injury is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." I assume the defendants will argue that the ban will not be a 90 day one-time-only affair and that the issue could come up again under the same or a different administration and should be heard for that reason. Its the same reason the Court hears cases from pregnant women long after the pregnancy that set off the case ended.

Does that mean that the Court would have to rule on what exactly would and would not constitute a 'Muslim ban'  in the future? How would you define the parameters of such a thing?