Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 2:45 PM
Subject: Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order...Tuyết-Lan: Với Chủ Trương Phá Trump, Đảng DC Tiếp Tục Thất Bại Ê Chề..
chết mẹ mày rồi bồi bút lữ gian mai loan ơi, mấy tháng trước mày đánh phá, chửi TT Trump đã làm bậy, ra "travel ban" kỳ thị dân tị nạn, rồi mày còn sỉ nhục TT Trump là đéo biết làm tổng thống gì cả, tổng thống gì mà lại sử dụng "executive order" để thực hành chính sách của mình. Nay, tình thế đã đổi ngược rồi, coi thử cái mặt mo của thằng bồi bút vô liêm sỉ lữ gian nguyễn anh tuấn, nguyễn đạt thịnh nó dày cỡ nào nhỉ.. Ô hô, ai tai !!!
Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order
Published
June 26, 2017
Supreme Court lifts injunction on travel ban
In a victory for the Trump administration, the
Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against
President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim
nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full
arguments as early as this fall.
The court's decision
means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of
the Trump administration -- the president's order temporarily
restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban."
Expand / Collapse
Protesters opposed to President Trump's travel ban wave signs during a demonstration.
(AP)
"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear
victory for our national security," Trump said in a statement. "...As
President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us
harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its
citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive."
He added: "My number one responsibility as Commander
in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me
to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland."
The court made clear that a limited version of the policy can be enforced immediately with a full hearing to come in the Fall.
"An American individual or entity that has a bona
fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country
as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is
excluded,” the court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do
not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any
such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out,
the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide
for the Nation’s security.”
Expand / Collapse
President Trump signs an executive order restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries.
(Reuters)
The justices decided to review the broader
constitutional issues over executive authority on immigration with oral
arguments to be held in the fall.
Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.
"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a
Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can
come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.
He added on Feb. 11: "Our legal system is broken!"
Expand / Collapse
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was nominated on Jan. 31 by President Trump.
(AP)
In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order -- which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.
Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take
up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as
more liberal appellate judges.
Four days after signing the original ban, Trump
nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when
Antonin Scalia died. Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely
seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could
help Trump claim an even more definitive victory after arguments.
“The Government has made a strong showing that it is
likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the judgments below will
be reversed,” wrote Justice Thomas, supported by Alito and Gorsuch.
“The Government has also established that failure to stay the
injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its
‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.’”
At issue is whether the temporary ban violates the
Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in
the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional
law.
Expand / Collapse
Demonstrators in favor of President Trump's travel ban counter-protest against those opposed to the executive order.
(AP)
Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in
recent weeks have ruled against the administration. A majority of the
4th Circuit appeals court cited then-candidate Trump's campaign
statements proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."
The White House, on the other hand, frames the issue
as a temporary move involving national security. A coalition of groups
in opposition call the order blatant religious discrimination, since the
six countries involved have mostly-Muslim populations: Iran, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
A major sticking point for the justices will be
navigating how much discretion the president really has over
immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and
recent presidents dating back to Jimmy Carter have used their
discretion to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats -- including
those from nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.
A 1952 federal law -- the Immigration and Nationality
Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence --
historically gives the chief executive broad authority.
"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, may by
proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary," Section
212 (f) of the law states, "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class
of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
In his opinion, Thomas criticized the majority for
the compromise nature of Monday's ruling, indicating he would have
allowed the order to be enforced in full. Thomas said he feared "the
Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.
"Today’s compromise will burden executive officials
with the task of deciding -- on peril of contempt -- whether individuals
from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a
sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas
wrote. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this
case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle
to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who
precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the
claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive
Order No. 13780.”
Fox News' Bill Mears contributed to this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment