Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 08, 2017 40 Comments
We previously wrote how the State of Hawaii (with co-plaintiff Dr. Ismail Elshikh) struck out in Hawaii federal court and in the 9th Circuit, in seeking "clarification" of how Trump's Travel Order No. 2 was to be implemented in light of the prior court injunctions and the Supreme Court's substantial overruling of those injunctions: The key problem identified by the court was the Hawaii's request for "clarification" was not proper. The District Court ruled that if Hawaii wanted clarification of a Supreme Court Order, it should seek such clarification from the Supreme Court:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 07, 2017 50 Comments
The 9th Circuit just issued an Order denying the State of Hawaii's Emergency Motion for an Injunction. For details on the motion, see our post earlier today, Hawaii seeks injunction from 9th Circuit to halt Trump application of SCOTUS Travel Ruling. The Court issued its Order without even waiting for the Trump administration to respond, and was issued by the same panel of Judges as decided the original appeal, which the Supreme Court substantially overrode. The full 9th Circuit Order (pdf.) is embedded below.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 07, 2017 28 Comments
Last night a District Court judge denied the State of Hawaii's emergency motion to "clarify" how the Trump administration is applying the Supreme Court's ruling on Travel Order No. 2. See my post last night, Judge Denies Hawaii request to halt Trump admin interpretation of SCOTUS Travel Order ruling. The District Court judge refused to consider the request to "clarify" his prior injunction, telling the parties to go to the Supreme Court if they want a to interpret the Supreme Court's Order. Today Hawaii filed its appeal (pdf.) in the 9th Circuit. A full copy is embedded below.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 06, 2017 22 Comments
The State of Hawaii sought an emergency ruling from the Hawaii federal judge whose original injunction against Trump Travel Order No. 2 was mostly overturned by the Supreme Court. We covered the emergency request in our post, Hawaii seeks injunction against Trump admin interpretation of SCOTUS Travel Order ruling. The main issue was how the Trump administration was applying the test the Supreme Court established for who would be exempt from the blanket country-wide prohibition on visa entry. The Supreme Court reinstated substantially all of Trump’s Travel Order No. 2, but the Supreme Court carved out an exception for people who have a “bona fide” relationship to the U.S. Such persons could not be subjected to a blanket, country-wide prohibition from entering the U.S. (emphasis added):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 02, 2017 38 Comments
For the Editorial Board of the NY Times, these are not the best of times, but the worst of times. But more than anything, for the Times Editorial Board, it is the age of foolishness and the season of Darkness. [h/t Charles Dickens] Trump *literally* has driven them insane. The Editorial blaming Sarah Palin for the Gabby Giffords shooting was pure emotion spewing forth, a guttural lashing out, a primal scream. It also was blatantly and knowingly false.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 01, 2017 12 Comments
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, I was a guest on the Bill Tucker Show on Newsmax TV. The topic was the Supreme Court ruling on Trump Travel Order No. 2, including my posts SCOTUS reinstates substantially all of Trump Travel Order and SCOTUS Travel Order ruling was “slap down” of lower courts and progressives. The interview started with Bill Tucker commenting on the name Legal Insurrection: "which always has a sort of mild radical feel to it." Why, thank you.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 30, 2017 23 Comments
When the Supreme Court reinstated substantially all of Trump's Travel Order No. 2, the Supreme Court carved out an exception for people who have a "bona fide" relationship to the U.S. Such persons could not be subjected to a blanket, country-wide prohibition from entering the U.S. (emphasis added):
We accordingly grant the Government’s stay applications in part and narrow the scope of the injunctions as to §2(c). The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2….

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on June 27, 2017 33 Comments
Appearing on today's Morning Joe, law professor Jonathan Turley noted that Chief Justice John Roberts teamed with Justice Anthony Kennedy to devise an exception to the Court's ruling of yesterday that permitted President Trump's travel ban to remain in place. Under the exception, the ban does not apply to foreign nationals with a "bona fide" relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Turley said that as of late, Roberts has been "swimming a lot in the middle of the pool," has become very Anthony "Kennedy-like," and would become the new swing vote should Kennedy retire.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 26, 2017 39 Comments
In the wake of the Supreme Court reinstatement of substantially all of President Trump's travel Executive Order, the left is responding as expected. Left-wing and Islamic groups are outraged and don't seem to understand the ruling . . . or the judicial role of the Supreme Court, while lefties on Twitter are in full meltdown mode. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a statement that appears to be premised on the 9-0 Supreme Court decision's failure to weigh the socio-cultural climate CAIR perceives rather than the law and Constitution.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 26, 2017 7 Comments
Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Missouri Lutheran School who'd sued the state over the state's decision to withhold grant money. PBS summarized:
The case grows out of a lawsuit filed by Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, after it lost out on a grant for its playground in 2012 despite being ranked fifth out of 44 applicants.

Posted by Mary Chastain on June 26, 2017 28 Comments
The Supreme Court has decided to hear a challenge from a Colorado baker, after the state charged him with violating the state's anti-discrimination law when he declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. From the LA Times:
Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., was charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination law, which says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. The state commission held that his refusal to make the wedding cake amounted to discriminatory conduct, and the state courts upheld that decision.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 26, 2017 82 Comments
[BREAKING - This post has been updated multiple times] In a per curiam Order (full embed at bottom of post), the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Trump Travel Order cases, and also substantially lifted the injunctions, with the exception of people seeking admission who already have a bona fide connection to the U.S. This represents a huge win for Trump. The key element of his Second Travel Order (the one at issue on appeal) was to exercise his constitutional and statutory power to exclude persons from the U.S. The lower courts effectively took that power away, and substituted their own judgments as to security threats. With a relatively narrow exception, that power has been reinstated to the presidency, pending a full decision on the merits of the case.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 25, 2017 37 Comments
With the House having passed a healthcare bill, and the Senate close to passing a version, there is a lot of debate over the specifics of the bills. Shameless Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders portray Republicans as setting out to kill tens of thousands of Americans. In the wake of the shooting of Republican Congressmen by a Sanders-supporter spouting similar talking points, the false death claims are nothing short of incitement to violence.

Posted by Mary Chastain on June 19, 2017 23 Comments
The Supreme Court has ruled 8-0 that it is unconstitutional for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to not register offensive names under the federal trademark law's disparagement clause. The Asian-American band The Slants did not receive a trademark due to this clause, which the justices found violated free speech. From CNN:
"Holding that the registration of a trademark converts the mark into government speech would constitute a huge and dangerous extension of the government-speech doctrine, for other systems of government registration (such as copyright) could easily be characterized in the same way," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 12, 2017 28 Comments
We've been here before. Another judicial opinion upholding an injunction against Trump's Travel Order No. 2. This time from the 9th Circuit arising out of the injunction by the Hawaii District Court. The Opinion (pdf.) is embedded below. The Trump administration already has the Hawaii injunction before the Supreme Court, as it previously filed for contingent review of a possible 9th Circuit decision, expecting a losing result. The 4th Circuit Opinion also is before the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunctions, the opposition to which is due today.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 05, 2017 34 Comments
There he went again. Early this morning Donald Trump launched a twitter storm regarding the issue of the Executive Orders regarding visa entry to the U.S. from 6 (originally 7) majority Muslim nations previously identified by the Obama administration as posing unique security risks. On January 28, 2017, just after the first Executive Order, I addressed much of the nonsense in the media about the substance of the Executive Order, Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading. Most significantly, it was inaccurate to describe it as a "Muslim ban," which was the media descriptor of choice.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 02, 2017 52 Comments
Donald Trump's second Executive Order on visa entry from six majority Muslim countries is now before the Supreme Court. Trump is seeking review of the 4th Circuit's decision upholding a Maryland District Court injunction halting the Executive Order. In addition to the Petition for  a Writ of Certiorari asking SCOTUS to hear the case on the merits, Trump has a request for a stay of the lower court injunctions pending a decision on the merits. The application is on a fast track, with the Court setting June 12 as the deadline for opposition papers. The 4th Circuit's decision found that the Executive Order, though facially neutral, "in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination" and that context was "a backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisors and representatives at different points in time, both before and after the election and President Trump’s assumption of office."
Accessibility by WAH