Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Restore Travel Ban

Tyler Durden's picture

Four months after threatening he would take his immigration travel ban all the way to the Supreme Courty, Trump's administration did just that on Thursday night when it asked SCOTUS to revive his plan to temporarily ban travelers from six Muslim-majority nations after it was blocked by lower courts that found it was discriminatory.

"We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism," Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the legal groups challenging the ban, tweeted in response: "We've beat this hateful ban and are ready to do it again."

The administration filed emergency applications with the nine high court justices seeking to block two different lower court rulings that went against Trump's March 6 order barring entry for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the U.S. government implements stricter visa screening, Reuters reported. The move came after the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge's ruling blocking the order. The administration also filed a separate appeal in that case.

Among other considerations, the nine supreme court justices are set to weigh whether Trump's harsh election campaign rhetoric can be used as evidence that the order was intended to discriminate against Muslims. Previously, the government had argued that the court should not take into account Trump's comments during the 2016 U.S. presidential race since he made them before he took office on Jan. 20. But the appeals court rejected that view, saying they shed light on the motivations behind Trump's order.

The SCOTUS decision will also be a test of the ideological sway of Trump's recent conservative bench appointee, Neil Gorsuch. At least five votes are needed on the nine-justice court in order to grant a stay. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy - a conservative who sometimes sides with the court's four liberals - the frequent swing vote. If the government's emergency requests are granted, the ban would go into effect immediately.

Some more details from Reuters:

The court first has to act on whether to grant the emergency applications, which could happen within a fortnight. Then, the justices will decide whether to hear the government’s full appeal. The Supreme Court is not required to hear the case but is likely to due to its importance and the fact that the request is being made by the U.S. government.


The Justice Department has asked the court to expedite the case so that the justices could hear it at the beginning of their next term, which starts in October. That means, if the court allows the ban to go into effect, the final decision would be issued long after the 90 days has elapsed.


In the court filings, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall highlighted the unprecedented nature of courts second-guessing the president on national security and immigration. "This order has been the subject of passionate political debate. But whatever one’s views, the precedent set by this case for the judiciary’s proper role in reviewing the president’s national-security and immigration authority will transcend this debate, this Order, and this constitutional moment," he wrote.

During the campaign, Trump campaign called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." His administration has argued that the travel ban is needed to prevent terrorism in the United States.

Federal courts in both Maryland and Hawaii issued rulings suspending key parts of the ban. The appeals court in Virginia upheld the Maryland ruling. A San Francisco-based appeals court is currently considering the Hawaii case. The administration is asking the Supreme Court to throw out the injunction imposed in both cases.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
new game's picture

travel, pft, overrated....

Croesus's picture

We NEED more Muzzies here...


new game's picture

hey, they come to us and we don't need to travel to see them. think of all the savings.

they are everywhere, by design and progressive diversity.

plus an explosion for shits and grins.


ne-tiger's picture

I conclude Trump is fucking crazy on this. They also want to fucking ban computers in carry on, out of their fucking mind?

VinceFostersGhost's picture



Sorry cult members.....looks like we're gonna win some more.

Never One Roach's picture

Maybe send the judges poster sized photos of the dead children in Manchester, murdered by an islamic terrorist?

ne-tiger's picture

The chances of being killed by islamic terrorrists here is much smaller than being killed by light. But it's beyond redneck's limited IQ, much easier to blame other people/race.

FrozenGoodz's picture

Winning as in, initiating a 3 year process to remove yourself when an agreement? I'm happy for my 401(k) ... but the 'tax plan' in congress that's 'coming along' doesn't exist ... it's all smoke n mirrors ... he's done nothing for middle class America

ne-tiger's picture

That's another fucking joke: US is becoming a bogus country: I don't care climate change is true or not, agreement is agreement. A country doesn't just sign a deal and then fucking change its mind every 4 years.

MalteseFalcon's picture

Then it's going to be a tough 8 years for you, tiger.

Every single Obama "agreement" that was not approved by congress, most of Obama's legacy, is going to be torn up.

Then the one "agreement" that was, Obamacare, will be torn up as well.

mdr attitude's picture

Trump has a lot of house cleaning to do.

That's to show you how much damage a muslim&traitor can do in 8 years

Obama Gave Anti-Trump Group More than $20 Million in Government Grants

froze25's picture

I wonder if the ACLU can consider the Rights of Citizens that are violated by these "Refugees" by not only the crime they bring but also the tax dollars that are spent on these Non-citizens. You take my money through Taxes under threat of force if I don't pay and give it to a foreign national, thats slavery.

MarsInScorpio's picture


To use the Label of the Day, you are "bat-shit crazy."

HockeyFool's picture

Actually, he is likely being paid to post stupid shit like this by some Soros backed group of globalist faggots. I can tell from his 19 week old account, he is just like so many other pussies here spewing the same ignorant commie bullshit.

Oldwood's picture

So "a country" signed a deal? Fucking idiot. OBAMA signed the fucking "deal" without ANY conference or consideration of the elected representatives of the American people. It is amazing how those so enamored with democracy seem to feel that it is only applicable in support of Progressivism and globalism. 

Tell you what Tigger, why don't YOU just cut the check from YOUR pocket for this massive transfer of wealth? Leave we deplorables the fuck alone. Seems we only have value when the bill comes due and are to remain silent and uncounted otherwise.

ne-tiger's picture

Fucking transfer wealth to who?  You people are brainwashed by left/right shit, which I don't give a fuck. I call as it is.

Blaming Iraqi/Libya people who were fucked by US in the first place helps prevent wealth transfer? Changing policy every four years as a country helps? 

Don't give me the left/right shit, you are brainedwashed  slave/tool

Oldwood's picture

The Paris Accord was ONLY about AMERICA surrendering wealth to the rest of the world's nation and giving trade advantage to our strongest competitors. 

And do you REALLY think that your position is NOT progressive?

PLEASE! Hate for the traditional white culture (PROGRESSIVISM) is dripping from your posts. Left, right? You chose your side.

ne-tiger's picture

I said I don't give a fuck left or right and I think it's a scheme to get you stupid people divided and occupied. I hate Hillary, that's why supported Trump. But then I don't like a lot of things he do and I tell like it is.

Let me ask you, why whenever you see a different idea, you automatically try to label it? As for white culture, is progressive a fucking white culture?

Oldwood's picture

There is NOTHING different about your ideas. They are in direct opposition to mine and are completely in line with the progressive agenda. If you are too stupid to see that, don't project that ignorance upon others. The world is light and dark and we ALL stand somewhere with very few EXACTLY in the middle. The fact you don't know where you are is disturbing....but typical. Pick a fucking side and own it.

ne-tiger's picture

That I agree, we are total opposite: you are no different from fucking isis, If people disagree, they are devils to u.

Oldwood's picture

No, the are not evil. Most are simply dangerous idiots suffering from decades of indoctrination. My point was simply that most who do harm BELIEVE they doing good. Communists killed millions in pursuit of utopian perfection. They had lots of dangerous idiots willing to murder their own families for their beliefs, and the most dangerous threat to them was thought, speech and debate. I seek to silence NO ONE, only to illustrate their errors.

Fisherman Blue's picture

Suck a sack of refugee dicks after you open the door to your one room trailor and let them all move in, dumb ass.

booboo's picture

"It's a living document and we have to be flexible in its interpretation"
Just saying, precedent is a bitch when your stupidity blows up in your face.
Other than that the rednecks I know have a helluvalot more common sense than any left tard I know.

Mike Masr's picture


"But it's beyond redneck's limited IQ, much easier to blame other people/race".

There are people of ALL races that follow Islam.

There are many white muslims who live in Bosnia, Albania, and the Caucausus region of SW Europe.

I think your knowledge is limited to what the MSM media feeds you.

Abaco's picture

But entirely preventable douchebag.

Playtime's Over's picture

Crazy because he wants to keep 9th century mentality from dismembering you.  Yeah, crazy man.  Just crazy.

MarsInScorpio's picture


Some things are so obvious that if a person doesn't instinctively "get it," it's a sign that they are the one who is out of his or her mind.

I see you don't "get it," so . . . .

The issues here are: 1) Is the Judiciary really a Supreme Legislative Body empowered to rewrite laws based upon the ideology of a single judge;

2) Is a federal District Court judge now allowed to routinely extend their jurisdiction to the entire nation, making them de facto Super Powers lording over all of America - if the SCOTUS upholds these clearly political opinions by these basement-level judges, then it will rewrite the Constitution and elevate the Judicial Branch above the other two branches of government, de jure.

Wikipedia notes that, "In contrast to the Supreme Court, which was established by Article III of the Constitution, the district courts were established by Congress. There is no constitutional requirement that district courts exist at all. Indeed, after the ratification of the Constitution, some opponents of a strong federal judiciary urged that the federal court system be limited to the Supreme Court, which would hear appeals from state courts. This view did not prevail, however, and the first Congress created the district court system that is still in place today."

The District Courts have become America's Frankenstein.

Imagine what happens when this really catches on with the egos of these judges, and America finds itself with every politically appointed crony thinking he or she is in-charge of all America - does the SCOTUS truly understand what it is being asked to control?

It will when its case-load stretches for miles by having to bring order back to American jurisprudence . . .

3) This court-brought Constitutional Crisis is not about the constitutionality of the underlying federal law - that has been held up and is unchallenged in this matter.

This crisis is the result of these judges imposing their own, personal and singular, political beliefs over the acts of Congress, and their implementation by the Executive.

The law could not be any more clear than it is: "“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S. Code § 1182 (Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952).

The question before SCOTUS is, "What part of that do you not understand?"

4) This is a point in constitutional law as monumental as Marbury v Madison. In a practical sense, that decision, Chief Justice John Marshall made the Judicial Branch supreme over all others because a SCOTUS ruling is almost impossible to overrule through constitutional means.

There is of course one way to do so, however, it will bring the wrath of the Establishment down on the Executive - regardless who holds office: The President, as Chief Magistrate of America, balances the power of SCOTUS with the Executive prerogative of whether to enforce the SCOTUS decision.

Imagine if the president said, "No. I don't tell you how to write your briefs, and you don't tell me how to run the Executive Branch. I control the enforcement mechanism, not you; this control is what balances the power of the branches so that no one branch can control the actions of another. "

This is what the president should have told Marshall. Today, it is too late. 


Oldwood's picture

Thanks but I don't think they are interested in law, Constitution or even rationality. This is about religion, ideology, DELUSION induced by decades of indoctrination that believes in abrogation, that the ends justify the means.....that the means ARE the ends.

awakeRewe's picture

Scorpio -

You are the reason I love ZH - Thank You!

MrPalladium's picture

The original intent or our Constitution limited Supreme Court power over the other branches of government to declaring what the law is and the sole instrumentality was to be a declaratory judgment. This notion that the Supreme court can enjoin the excecutive - ie order him to do what the Courts want - would be shocking to the founders who wrote the Constitution and would be seen as a usurpation of executive power which would make the courts the supreme branch of government.

Back 43 years ago when I graduated (SCL, law journal) from OSU Law School, 90% of my classmates were liberal Democrats and only 10% Independent or Republican. That 90% clearly wanted to use the courts and their injunctive powers to transform society. Thus these most recent cases are no surprise given the type of power hungry ideologues that law schools attract.

Abaco's picture

That is exactly what Trump should have done when that first faggot judge in Washington overturned the ban.  He already had a judge in Boston who ruled the ban perfectly legal.  When the other judges declared it wasn't Trump should have said "tough shit - the ban will be enforced.  Just because a nitwit in Washington or Hawaii says stop doesn't mean the President is bound by the decision.  Not until the Supreme Court rules do I need to even give a shit what the court says.  The Supreme Court is only co-equal to congress and the president.  They have the power of persuasion - and nothng more.  Congress has the powe of the purse.  If they agree with SCOTUS they can reinforce them and then the President should submit. Otherwise SCOTUS can go fuck itself because nine nitwits in drag who are politically appointed for life do not get to rewrite the consitution."

ducksinarow's picture

The wheels of justice do grind slowly and disrespecting a lower court's decision will not win you any favors with the Supreme Court. This is not Dodge city in the 1800's and there are more people to answer to.

If Trump had done what you suggested, the courts would have filled up with even more law suits than it already has over this issue, but in the mean time, waiting for a final decision to be rendered gives Trump and the ICE and border patrol time to get rid of the people who were on Obama's payroll and still catching and releaseing or even not catching but saying they did. There is an independent economy flouishing at the borders and that will have to be dealt with legally too.

Koba the Dread's picture

How things work department: Generally speaking, when you state a conclusion, you preface it with an argument (a set of reasons) that lead to that conclusion. Maybe you skipped school the week they taught critical thinking.

Bill of Rights's picture

Brain cells as well...apparently.

Dilluminati's picture

How people can advocate importing culture that is so entirely antithetical to western secular vlaues and freedom is beyond me.  Funny thing, but we are still free.  We can choose our jobs freely, have freedom of travel, can send our children to schools of our choice, activites of our choice, vacation as we please, yes we are still free and modern life isn't easy, it as never been easy.

Freedom has never been easy, and it "garuntees nothing" but it certainly is better than the tyranny and failure of Islamic repression and radical luncay.  

But for those who don't believe we are free?  I would argue you didn't step up to the plate and earn it.  get off your ass, get yourself some skills, your family members some skills, and enjoy it.. it is precious.

ne-tiger's picture

nobody suggests importing culture, we are talking about banning all those countries fucked up by US in the first place while letting Saudis roaming free...

Playtime's Over's picture

Might be considered hypocrisy but not crazy.  Perfectly normal self protection. By your logic or lack thereof we should let them come here to blow us up as a penance for our past wrongs.  Will you volunteer as fodder?  Dumbass

Oldwood's picture

Progressivism DEMANDS sacrifice and ultimately suicide in pursuit of the "ideal". At some point we must ALL accept this ideal does not include white conservatives......or ANY whites. Why else would we see even the radical WHITE progressives pushing this theme if they are not pushing their own elimination. All part and parcel with the self hate promoted in Western nation's for many decades.

They have been pushing negative population growth in predominantly white cultures while transferring OUR wealth to those cultures repoducing profligately, and now see how they are pushing these overpopulated cultures into to ours under contrived guilt and the claimed necessity of needed workers....many of which have NO interest in working, only adding to our already oppressive overhead of entitlement.

Is this clear??

ne-tiger's picture

Fuck progressive, I'm not. Can you get out of this left/right trap and see as it is?

Oldwood's picture

You are what you are by your actions and beliefs. Your are supporting the progressive agenda REGARDLESS of what you call yourself. 

The world is full of people in league with the devil who are absolutely convinced they are doing God's work.

ne-tiger's picture

So that's you whole fucking point? If people disagree, they are devils? Are you fucking isis?


ne-tiger's picture

If it really helps, I will agree. But remember which countrry is the most 911 terrorists came from, is it on the list?


That's why it's just a propaganda scheme, scoring some cheap points from low IQ rednecks.

Oldwood's picture

Half of something is better than NOTHING, and I'm quite sure you would STILL reject the policy if SA was included in the "ban". We know the basis of this policy's rejection.... Trump's "racism" against Muslims. As such NO progressives would prevent even the most radical Muslim, wearing a bomb vest and knife in his teeth, from entering our country. Progressives are more than happy to sacrifice others for their beliefs, THEIR collective guilt.

Koba the Dread's picture

"[W]earing a bomb vest and knife in his teeth"? How can you wear a bomb vest in your teeth?

shovelhead's picture

I can make a mean potholder.

Von Berger's picture

Supreme Court...... make America safe again.

Arnold's picture

More important than Muzzies, it will set limits on Executive Orders.
Agree or dis agree with the order, The President has the right to issue them and have them followed.
Shit, that was the whole of the O'Bama action and legacy.

Oldwood's picture

Think Islamic abrogation.

Executive orders are evil and unamerican ..... UNLESS they advance the religion of Progressivism.

Progressivism and Islam are sister religions.

brushhog's picture

Gorsuch....we got it now.

VinceFostersGhost's picture



Yeah.....that's what the election was really about!