The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, involving the third version of the President Trump's executive order sharply limiting immigration from certain countries. The transcript is on the Court's website.
Most observers think that the argument went well for the Government. Amy Howe at Howe on the Court says, "After over an hour of debate, a majority of the court (and perhaps even a solid one) appeared ready to rule for the government and uphold the order in response to concerns about second-guessing the president on national-security issues."
So it should. This version of the order is solid and carefully considered. It is well within the Chief Executive's sweeping authority over these issues.
CJLF did not file an amicus brief in this stage of the litigation. For "Travel Ban 2.0," we filed a brief arguing that the case was moot. We were the only ones to make a substantial argument to that effect in the main briefing (although the SG came along in a supplemental), and that was the holding of the Court. We considered it strategically better for the Court to reach the merits in TB 3.0 rather than TB 2.0 because it is much more defensible ground.
Expect an opinion at the very end of the term in late June or early July.
Most observers think that the argument went well for the Government. Amy Howe at Howe on the Court says, "After over an hour of debate, a majority of the court (and perhaps even a solid one) appeared ready to rule for the government and uphold the order in response to concerns about second-guessing the president on national-security issues."
So it should. This version of the order is solid and carefully considered. It is well within the Chief Executive's sweeping authority over these issues.
CJLF did not file an amicus brief in this stage of the litigation. For "Travel Ban 2.0," we filed a brief arguing that the case was moot. We were the only ones to make a substantial argument to that effect in the main briefing (although the SG came along in a supplemental), and that was the holding of the Court. We considered it strategically better for the Court to reach the merits in TB 3.0 rather than TB 2.0 because it is much more defensible ground.
Expect an opinion at the very end of the term in late June or early July.
The opinion in this case should be a paragraph. The permission of the Executive Branch is required for a non-citizen (sans status, e.g., green card) to enter the USA. That authority doesn't somehow shift because the President as a candidate (or even as President) made comments that could be construed as offensive.