Supreme Court will hear Trump travel ban challenge.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear the Trump administration challenge to rulings blocking his executive order restricting travel from six Muslim-majority countries.
The court allows enforcement of parts of the order while it hears the case.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Trump administration's challenge of rulings blocking his executive order restricting travel from six Muslim-majority countries.

The top U.S. court will allow enforcement of parts of the "travel ban" while the case moves forward. Justices will hear arguments on the case in the fall.

Trump has argued that the measure, a key campaign plank and one of the most divisive moves of his young presidency, is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks in the U.S. Critics and some federal court rulings have argued that it targets immigrants based on religion, after Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the U.S. as a candidate.

Two federal appeals courts previously upheld rulings that largely blocked enforcement of the executive order. The Trump administration made an emergency request to put the executive order into effect.

The March 6 executive order, revised from an earlier version that was blocked by courts, called for a 90-day ban on travelers from six countries — Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It also pushed for a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States.

The court ruled that the order can take effect except for people who "lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." It said the same for the refugee provision.

Three justices — including Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch — said they would have let the executive order go into effect in full.

6/26/2017:

BREAKING NEWS: High court reinstates key parts of Trump travel ban; to rule on case in October.

the only issue will be will the conservative on the court now do one hundred eighty degree turnaround from their ruling in Obama V Texas. The same issue now are confronting the court. The facts of Obama V Texas are Obama signed an executive order dealing with immigration. A single judge ruling for the entire nation stayed the order because he found in Obama oral statements on the issue prejudice or violation of the law. The supreme court split four to four on all issue.

Now what will the new judge do. The four conservative ruled against Obama. THERE IS NO FACTUAL DIFFERENCE IN THE CASES. Should the conservative judge now ruled for Trump you know that their ruling was just political and one does not do 180 degree turn that quickly on the issue

Ow! busted. You got me again, Arlo

Nine justices delivered a reminder yesterday of why the Supreme Court was such an important campaign issue.



In allowing key parts of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect, the high court—with help from Trump’s man Neil Gorsuch—upended the conventional wisdom on the case. After all, in agreeing to hear the case in October, the justices could have left the temporary stay in place pending a final ruling.

Instead, they sent a strong signal to the appellate courts that they had gone too far in blocking the executive order—and enabled the president to claim “a clear victory for our national security.”

But the court also obliterated the existing media narrative, which is that the travel ban was a badly botched, unconstitutional overreach by Trump.

That narrative took hold as the lower courts rejected two successive versions of the ban. And it was fueled by the visceral dislike that many news organizations and commentators have for the order, despite the fact that it was a central plank in Trump’s campaign.