SC allows partial travel ban pending appeal

[Dereich]

I was already writing up a post for another thread, so I'll just post what I had here:

SCOTUS just adjourned for the summer and did a few things regarding the travel ban.

First, they set the case to be heard in October.

Next, they gave both sides an additional question to answer: "In addition to the issues identified in the petitions, the parties are directed to address the following questions: Whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017."

Finally, on the preliminary matters they (per curiam, so without dissent) affirmed the preliminary injunction, but only part of it. The part of the injunctions dealing with the SPECIFIC PLAINTIFFS or people similarly situated were upheld. The part of the injunction dealing with everyone else was not. So the ban is still not in effect for people with connections to the United States, such as people with relatives in the US or the students trying to attend a US university. The injunctions were too broad when they stopped the ENTIRE ban, including for people with no connections to the United States. For those people, the ban is back.

[Dereich]

I mean, this decision makes sense. The Court hates injunctions. They don't like to flex their power and start banning things; its only an option after damages or other remedies are unavailable. The Court DOUBLE HATES preliminary injunctions. They really really don't want to ban people or the government from doing something without a full case on the matter. So when they are allowed, those need to be limited and narrowly tailored for the specific circumstance...which the injunctions really weren't.

I don't think that this ruling should lead to the rejoicing by Trump's people that I'm seeing; its what logically should have followed from the Court's known principles.

[Dereich]

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.