President Trump’s jihadi importation reduction order, what is often referred to as a travel ban by the media and Democrats, is before The Supreme Court and has almost certainly already been decided. The Associated Press reports that the justices met on Thursday morning for their last regularly scheduled private conference in June and it is believed that they took a vote about whether to allow the President his rights to defend the country others have under the law.
A favorable ruling would allow the President to immediately resume enforcing a travel ban from six nations that have a higher than average probability that anyone entering the United States from them is a terrorist. Those nations also have no trustworthy database or method of vetting their potential travelers or any so-called “refugees.”
The court’s decision could come at any time and is expected no later than late next week. The justices then depart DC for their own speeches, teaching engagements and vacations.
The timing may hinge on whether there are dissenting opinions and those dissenters choose to make a public statement. In that case time would be allotted to write the statement and any rebuttal by the majority.
Five affirmative votes are needed to reinstate the ban and four to set the case for argument. Citizens of the nations of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are affected by the ban.
The justices could immediately allow the ban to take effect, with arguments slated for October, which would be after the 90 day period of the ban has expired and a review of screening procedures completed.
AP also notes that the administration also could issue a new ban that includes more countries or is permanent, or both. That might make the current case go away and also could give rise to new legal challenges.
They might opt for the “there’s nothing urgent to the terrorist threat” approach, keeping the ban in place while setting a date for a hearing in October, an option that might be acceptable to all of the justices if they are seeking a politically correct out in advance of going out into the American public.
They could also keep the ban from being reinstated while at the same time declining to review the lower court rulings, which would essentially end the case. One factor that makes that outcome less likely is that the SCOTUS usually likes to have the last word when a lower court strikes down a federal law or on presidential action.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.