US Supreme Court Allows Trump's 3rd Travel Ban To Go Into Effect
The Supreme Court stayed two lower courts' injunctions against the ban as the Ninth and Fourth Circuits prepare to hear oral arguments this week.
December 04, 2017 at 05:05 PM
6 minute read
The Supreme Court on Monday decided to let the third version of President Donald Trump's so-called travel ban to go into effect, for now.
In two separate but nearly identical orders, the high court stayed two district court injunctions issued within hours of each other in October that blocked the ban from going into effect. The Ninth and Fourth Circuits are expected to hear oral arguments on those injunctions from the district courts in Hawaii and Maryland, on Wednesday and Friday, respectively.
The Supreme Court's order stays the injunctions pending disposition of the appellate cases. If the government seeks a writ of certiorari after those courts make their decisions, and that writ is granted, the stay will remain in place until the court enters a judgement, the order said. Otherwise, the stay will terminate automatically if the court denies cert. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the government's request, the orders said.
“It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones,” said Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union, who represents plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit, in a statement.
The third version of Trump's travel ban, issued via a proclamation Sept. 24, bars the issuance of visas to nationals from eight countries, six of which are majority-Muslim. The state of Hawaii, as well as several immigrant and Muslim rights organizations, sued the administration shortly after alleging Trump exceeded his authority by issuing the indefinite ban, and that it discriminates against Muslims.
Both the Ninth and Fourth Circuits expedited their consideration of the cases, which the Supreme Court indicated those courts should render their decisions “with appropriate dispatch.”
In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the high court's ruling was a “substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people.”
“We are pleased to have defended this order and heartened that a clear majority Supreme Court has allowed the president's lawful proclamation protecting our country's national security to go into full effect,” Sessions said. “The Constitution gives the president the responsibility and power to protect this country from all threats foreign and domestic, and this order remains vital to accomplishing those goals.”
Following the issuance of the new travel ban, the Supreme Court vacated rulings in both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit that upheld injunctions against Trump's March 6 travel ban order, the second so far. The first order, issued in January, was enjoined by a federal district court in Washington state in February.
The Supreme Court on Monday decided to let the third version of President Donald Trump's so-called travel ban to go into effect, for now.
In two separate but nearly identical orders, the high court stayed two district court injunctions issued within hours of each other in October that blocked the ban from going into effect. The Ninth and Fourth Circuits are expected to hear oral arguments on those injunctions from the district courts in Hawaii and Maryland, on Wednesday and Friday, respectively.
The Supreme Court's order stays the injunctions pending disposition of the appellate cases. If the government seeks a writ of certiorari after those courts make their decisions, and that writ is granted, the stay will remain in place until the court enters a judgement, the order said. Otherwise, the stay will terminate automatically if the court denies cert. Justices
“It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones,” said Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union, who represents plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit, in a statement.
The third version of Trump's travel ban, issued via a proclamation Sept. 24, bars the issuance of visas to nationals from eight countries, six of which are majority-Muslim. The state of Hawaii, as well as several immigrant and Muslim rights organizations, sued the administration shortly after alleging Trump exceeded his authority by issuing the indefinite ban, and that it discriminates against Muslims.
Both the Ninth and Fourth Circuits expedited their consideration of the cases, which the Supreme Court indicated those courts should render their decisions “with appropriate dispatch.”
In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the high court's ruling was a “substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people.”
“We are pleased to have defended this order and heartened that a clear majority Supreme Court has allowed the president's lawful proclamation protecting our country's national security to go into full effect,” Sessions said. “The Constitution gives the president the responsibility and power to protect this country from all threats foreign and domestic, and this order remains vital to accomplishing those goals.”
Following the issuance of the new travel ban, the Supreme Court vacated rulings in both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit that upheld injunctions against Trump's March 6 travel ban order, the second so far. The first order, issued in January, was enjoined by a federal district court in Washington state in February.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute read'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute readThe 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—Appellate Hot List
4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250