Trump team asks Justices to scuttle immigration cases




  • In World/Asia
  • 2017-08-12 20:07:00Z
  • By National Constitution Center
 

The Trump Administration, insisting that the presidential order limiting entry to the U.S. of foreign nationals from Mideast nations "is not a so-called 'Muslim ban,' " urged the Supreme Court on Thursday evening to throw out without a decision two major cases pursued by challengers to the restrictions.

The 84-page brief was the first document to be filed with the Justices on the major issue the Justices agreed in late June to review at their next term - the legality of President Trump's March 6 executive order suspending entry by foreign nationals and refugees. The Justices have scheduled a hearing on that issue on October 10. The challengers will file their own brief on the legality issue next month.

That review is separate from a continuing controversy about how, in the meantime, the Trump Administration can enforce the provisions of the executive order. The Supreme Court has twice issued temporary orders allowing enforcement of some of the order. That part of the controversy is now awaiting a decision in a federal appeals court in Seattle, and seems likely to return to the Justices in advance of the opening of their new term.

The government's new brief contended that no one among the challengers can show that they are now being harmed or will suffer any harm from the March order by Trump, so lower court decisions against the order should be set aside as lacking any legal basis. Two federal appeals courts have ruled that the executive order either was an unconstitutional form of religious discrimination against Muslims, or went beyond presidential authority under federal immigration laws governing the power to exclude foreign nationals from this country.

In trying to counter the claim that the real purpose of the Trump action was to keep Muslims out of the U.S. because of their faith, the brief argued that it is a serious affront to the presidency to second-guess the motives of a Chief Executive by accusing him of bias against "one of the world's major religions."

The federal appeals court's ruling against the executive order as a "Muslim ban," the new filing asserted, runs directly counter to President Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia in May calling for "tolerance and respect" for all faiths, and imputes a biased motive to a presidential order that is "neutral on its face" as to religion and is aimed only at protecting national security.

The appeals court's decision "plainly carries the potential to undermine the Executive's ability to conduct foreign relations for and protect the security of the Nation," the government lawyers wrote.

The brief also urged the Supreme Court not to allow lower courts, in weighing President Trump's immigration action, to rely upon statements he made while a candidate for the presidency. Those statements, including calling for a "complete Muslim ban," did not represent the views that President Trump held after he took the oath of office and assumed major constitutional responsibilities, the brief argued.

Restricting government authority based on political campaign rhetoric not only treats such speechmaking as the equivalent of actual policy, but also will present a threat to free speech for those making campaign orations, according to the brief.

The two main provisions of the Trump order that the Justices will be weighing as valid or invalid are a 90-day suspension of entry from all foreign nationals from six Mideast nations that have Muslim majority populations, and a 120-day suspension of entry from refugees from anywhere in the world.

These entry restrictions were suspended by the presidential order in order to give government officials time to improve the procedures for "vetting" foreigners seeking to travel to the U.S. As currently written, the 90-day suspension from the Mideast nations will expire in late September, before the Supreme Court even holds its hearing on October 10, and the 120-day suspension of refugees' arrival will expire on October 24, just two weeks after that hearing.

Those time factors suggest that the cases could lose their legal significance - in legal terms, become "moot" - before the Justices have the opportunity to rule on President Trump's order.

The new brief did not discuss the effect of those expirations on the cases. However, in discussing another timing factor that could affect whether the 90-day suspension has already become "moot," the new document said that any finding that the controversy has become moot should lead the Justices to simply erase the lower court rulings against the President.

On the validity of the Trump order, the brief made a full defense, both on the question of the president's power to issue the law under federal immigration laws, and on the question of whether it is an unconstitutional ban on entry based on religious bias.

The brief said clear-cut Supreme Court precedents demonstrate that the courts are ill-equipped to second-guess the Chief Executive in the use of power granted by Congress to decide which classes of foreign nationals can be barred from entering the country. The appeals courts were wrong in finding exceptions that allow them to do just that kind of second-guessing, the filing argued.

Legendary journalist Lyle Denniston has written for us as a contributor since June 2011 and has covered the Supreme Court since 1958. His work also appears on lyldenlawnews.com, where this story first appeared.

COMMENTS

More Related News

Moore tells supporters
Moore tells supporters 'battle is not over' in Senate race

Alabama Republican Roy Moore on Friday told supporters that the "battle is not over" in Alabama's Senate race even though President Donald Trump and others have called on him to concede. Moore ...

Many of Trump's comments 'racially charged', says ex-White House staffer Omarosa
Many of Trump's comments 'racially charged', says ex-White House staffer Omarosa

Manigault-Newman's exit has revived focus on the lack of diversity in Trump's White House. Many of Donald Trump's comments have been "racially charged", the most high-profile black woman to have worked in his White House has said. Former reality TV star Omarosa Manigault-Newman, whose departure was announced this week, went on to say that despite those exchanges, she did not consider the president a racist.

Trump Judicial Nominee Can't Answer Basic Questions About The Law In Disastrous Hearing
Trump Judicial Nominee Can't Answer Basic Questions About The Law In Disastrous Hearing

MUST WATCH: Republican @SenJohnKennedy asks one of @realDonaldTrump's US District Judge nominees basic questions of law & he can't answer a single one.

Putin, Trump discuss N Korea in phone call
Putin, Trump discuss N Korea in phone call

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump discussed the crisis over North Korea's nuclear program in a phone call Thursday, in which the US president took the unusual step of thanking his Russian counterpart for praising America's economy. The two heads of state discussed "the situation in several crisis zones, with a focus on solving the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula," the Kremlin said in a statement, without elaborating. "President Trump thanked President Putin for acknowledging America's strong economic performance in his annual press conference," it said.

Eric Trump Joins Attack On Kirsten Gillibrand, Says She Asked For Money 'Every 3 Days'
Eric Trump Joins Attack On Kirsten Gillibrand, Says She Asked For Money 'Every 3 Days'

President Donald Trump's son Eric has echoed his dad's recent attack on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Asia

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.