Slowly but steadily, the Trump administration is finding that its legislative decisions are more than just necessary, but legally justifiable as well – much to the irritation of the liberal Left.
In another major judicial victory for the Oval Office, the Supreme Court has cleared all of the Travel Ban hearings from its schedule; the ban remains safe, according to The Hill.
On Monday, the Supreme Court canceled hearings related to President Trumps newest travel ban. Instead of moving on with the scheduled arguments in October, the court ordered all parties involved in the matter to instead file briefs on whether their cases are relevant or not following the release of these newest set of restrictions released earlier.
With his original 90-day travel ban now expired and the window for his 120-day refugee ban winding up, Trump recently announced changes to the immigration policy. The newest announcement from the White House notes the ban would restrict travel of those from Chad, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia.
North Korea, Chad, and Venezuela are the new additions to the list. Sudan, however, was taken off the list, having introduced new screening measures and complied with providing information to the United States.
This decision on the behalf of the Supreme Court, although not a direct ruling on the legality of Trump’s ban, is still a victory for the administration in and of itself.
This wasn’t the first victory for the administration either. Earlier in June, the Supreme Court said the government could reinstate a ban after lower courts blocked it. In September, the court agreed again to lift restrictions preventing the government from banning refugees who have formal assurances from resettlement agencies.
Many Left-leaning immigration groups jumped on the opportunity to challenge Trump’s ban in court, often mislabeling it as a “Muslim ban.”
“The argument that this is a ruse for a Muslim ban I don’t think is credible anymore,” said Josh Blackman, associate law professor at the South Texas College of Law. “They have put some thought into this. It’s not like the first executive order that looked like it was drafted on a cocktail napkin. This was done after a very thorough vetting.”
Trump recently announced changes to the immigration policy. Do you agree with the new travel ban?
Another expert concurred with the Supreme Courts decision. “I don’t think Chief Justice [John] Roberts is in any hurry to do anything with the president’s executive power if he doesn’t have to. I think this a delicate area that involves the president, Congress, national security and civil liberties. If it’s not necessary that the court decide this, why do it?” asked Carl Tobias, another professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
This decision has put those in the pro-immigrant position nervous for the future of their case, as what happens now depends on what’s argued in the briefs. Omar Jadwat, director of Immigrants’ Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), recognized the peril of the anti-Trump case, saying that “if they find the case moot, that could end it.”
It’s not an enviable position to be in for the lawyers arguing against the travel ban. However, for the government as well as the American people, this news couldn’t be any better.