The Trump Administration returned to the Supreme Court on Monday night in the latest round in the long-running court fight over barring the entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals from nations with Muslim population majorities.
Although a federal appeals court had allowed the Administration to begin enforcing part of the third version of immigration restrictions, government lawyers urged the Justices to allow enforcement of the policy in its entirety until the Supreme Court has an opportunity to rule on the legality of the latest limits.
At this point, though, the Administration is seeking only a delay of a federal judge’s nationwide order against enforcing key parts of the September 24 version of the travel restrictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled a week ago that the judge had gone too far, and allowed the government to impose the restrictions on foreign nationals from six countries in general, but not on those individuals who already have some established tie to a person or an organization in the U.S.
In the new filing seeking authority to enforce the full September 24 orders for those six nations, the Administration said that the Ninth Circuit Court’s action was not sufficient to avoid the “irreparable harm” to the President’s authority to impose a ban on entry of foreign nationals deemed to be a potential threat to national security.
Although the Supreme Court had given the government similar, partial permission to enforce the now-abandoned second version of the immigration limitations, the new filing said that earlier round in the legal controversy had only involved a temporary policy that was adopted to give the government more time to study ways to limit threats from potential immigrants.
The third version, the document contended, is very different: it was written after an extensive, weeks-long review by several government agencies of what kinds of limitations were necessary in order to protect national security over a longer period of time. The new restrictions on entry are permanent, not temporary, it noted.
By Lyle Denniston for CONSTITUTIONAL DAILY
Read Full Article HERE