Support NeoGAF

[Tovarisc]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an appeals court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s previous temporary travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations countries that has now expired.

In a one-page order, the court acted in one of two cases pending before the nine justices over Trump’s travel ban, a case from Maryland brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to stop the ban contained in a March executive order.

For now, the court did not act on a separate challenge brought by the state of Hawaii, which the court had also agreed to hear. That case also features a challenge to a separate 120-day refugee ban, which has not yet expired.

That case could yet be dismissed once the refugee ban expires on Oct. 24, meaning the court remains unlikely to issue a final ruling on whether the ban was lawful.

The justices were unanimous in deciding against ruling in the Maryland case, although one of the liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, noted that she would not have wiped out the appeals court ruling.

The justices had been scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday, but removed it from their calendar after Trump’s 90-day ban expired on Sept. 24 and was replaced with a reworked ban.

The Trump administration has urged the court to dismiss both cases while the challengers have asked the justices to rule on the issue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

 

[Steel]

So they dismissed it because it expired?

 

[Shard]

So they dismissed it because it expired?

Basically.

 

[Canklestank]

Do they not realize that they need to set legal precedent? Otherwise Trump is just going to keep doing this.

On the other hand, I guess courts can just keep blocking it too. But it's crazy that that's necessary.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

Do they not realize that they need to set legal precedent? Otherwise Trump is just going to keep doing this.

On the other hand, I guess courts can just keep blocking it too. But it's crazy that that's necessary.

They can't rule on something that doesn't have force of law anymore.

 

[Dyle]

I still don't understand SCOTUS' logic on this case. They took up the case and allowed the revised ban to go through, knowing that by the time they heard the case, it would have expired, and thus would have to be dismissed since it no longer had the force of law. How does this make any sense, given that it amounted to an effective approval of the policy prior to hearing either position's case in court? What about the lower courts' rulings made it tenable, even unanimously so among the justices, to justify this tacit approval? I know the changes they made to the ban, requiring the US to allow in people with family connections beyond parents/children, were somewhat significant, but not hearing the case at all still rubs me the wrong way. I recognize that the Trump admin made a case that such a time limited ban was necessary for purposes of national security, but it seems questionable at best to accept that argument, allow the policy to go through with some changes, and then dismiss the case before formal hearings even began. Not setting any kind of legal precedent is troubling too, just setting the stage for many more trials that will inevitably make their way to SCOTUS. How long can they kick the can down the road on this issue before actually hearing a case and making a ruling on it?

 

[Skellig Gra]

Do they not realize that they need to set legal precedent? Otherwise Trump is just going to keep doing this.

On the other hand, I guess courts can just keep blocking it too. But it's crazy that that's necessary.

I think the Supreme Court understands the legal system slightly better than you.

 

[tokkun]

Don't forget that Obama also used a broad interpretation of the executive branch's power to set immigration policy to accomplish DACA. Although it is tempting to want the Court to limit executive powers while Trump is in office, the consequences would be around long after he is gone.

The Court's purpose here was clearly to sidestep the establishment of precedent and thereby avoid concerns over the separation of powers. I tend to think this is a good thing, and that the Court really only ought to step in and assert authority over other branches of the federal government when no other remedy is possible.

This type of precedent dodge is not so different from when John Roberts upheld key aspects of the ACA by choosing to interpret the individual mandate as a tax rather than as the government forcing people to purchase a product, despite the government explicitly arguing that was not the case.