SCOTUS To Lower Courts On The Travel Ban: Knock It Off

SCOTUS To Lower Courts On The Travel Ban: Knock It Off

Daily Caller
Kevin Daley
Supreme Court Reporter
December 6, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court appears somewhat irritated with federal courts that have repeatedly barred the Trump administration from enforcing immigration policies halting the entry of certain classes of migrants and refugees.

The high court’s latest orders sent three clear signals to lower courts, all of which are positive signs for President Donald Trump.

First, the Supreme Court is quite clearly expressing its view that the government will prevail on the merits of this dispute.

The Court would not grant an application with these facts if a majority of the justices did not believe the administration will ultimately be vindicated. As such, the orders appear to be a signal to the 4th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, two venues currently adjudicating travel ban challenges — proceed prudently, and with sufficient respect for the presumption that the administration is acting in good faith.

Secondly, the Court, for the most part, spoke as an institution.

The order was forthright and terse, suggesting the Court sees little ambiguity in this case. The sober style means to communicate decisiveness, competence and the sense that the Court is conducting its business without dramatics, unlike the rest of the government. What’s more, just two of the nine justices registered their dissent. Given these facts, it appears the justices are doing their best to speak as a Court and not as an amalgamation of nine separate jurists.

Third, the order instructs the 4th and 9th Circuits to “render [their] decision with appropriate dispatch.”

This language is highly unusual in a Supreme Court order. It seems to suggest that the justices plan to take the case themselves, and dispose of it as quickly as possible. Timing is especially relevant here. The Court’s current term ends in June, leaving just six months from this writing for briefing, argument, and deliberation.

All told, the coalition of civil rights groups and Democratic attorneys general fighting the latest iteration of Trump’s travel restrictions would seem to have trouble ahead of them.

The 9th Circuit will hear a travel ban challenge Wednesday, and the 4th Circuit will hear a second challenge Friday. Decisions are expected before the end of the year.

Source (note emphasis is mine)


This is one of the best summations of what happened at the Supreme Court on the travel ban that I have read. Hopefully it provides an understanding of what really did occur by their action.  The courts as noted are not finished with this problem and I do wonder what their consideration of the motion is before they go into their case decisions.

What is noteworthy is that in their written statement while not by explicit words does imply that they have as a court been fed up with the actions of lower courts. Looks to me like it is time to review the political bias being displayed in lower courts and either reprimand or remove those whose decisions are shown to be heavily biased rather than using actual law for their actions. Their case decisions may also need to be reviewed given their bias.




About Uriel

Retired educator and constitutionalist
Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to SCOTUS To Lower Courts On The Travel Ban: Knock It Off

  1. Pingback: HN&F | SCOTUS To Lower Courts On The Travel Ban: Knock It Off | Brittius

  2. Shar says:

    I vote for removing the cry babies that didn’t win.

  3. Navyvet says:

    These assholes just keep pissing away taxpayer money like it is confetti. Same with these worthless committees and investigations that never amount to anything no matter if the investigated person is guilty or innocent.

    • Uriel says:

      NavyVet. I couldn’t agree with you more. Congress while overseeing can’t and shouldn’t be involved in legal battles. They should simply recommend after an initial finding of not more than two hearings for DoJ and the FBI to investigate further. Any more time taken up is a waste of money and their time for legislative pursuits. A quick summary of findings from the legal branch might be cause for legislation changes to fix misrepresentation or interpretation but otherwise they should not be involved in judicial review.

  4. Wise Owl says:

    How refreshing! Thank you for posting this, Uriel!

  5. Whitetop says:

    How refreshing to have a court act as a unit minus 2 who should not be on the court. The court rulings handed down in Seattle and Hawaii are clearly examples of judges legislating f rom the bench. One can never depend on a ruling by the 9th circuit Court since it is so liberal. It is time these liberal judges were impeached so they too can run for Congress.

  6. Uriel says:

    omg Whitetop Nevvvvver that lol. I think it was a clear shot over the bow to get there ducks in a row. Congress already has enough of lawyers already hence a bill that by all rights should be five pages ends up being 500 pages.