The Big Seven (Plus One) Supreme Court Cases: A Change In Lineup

The "Travel Ban" cases (Trump v. IRAP/Trump v. Hawai'i) were scheduled to be argued in the Supreme Court on October 10; an entire hour had been allotted for argument. That all changed today when the Court took the cases off of the argument calendar until further order of the Court and asked the parties to address (1) whether the proclamation issued by the Trump administration yesterday rendered the cases moot; and (2) whether the expiration (on October 24) of parts of the March 6, 2017, order that barred admission of refugees rendered Trump v. Hawai'i moot. (Remember that "moot" is the legal term for meaning that there is no longer a dispute that the Court can settle). Briefs are limited to 10 pages for each issue and have to be filed simultaneously on October 5.

 The document that the Trump administration issued yesterday was a proclamation, not an Executive Order as were the two previous travel bans.  What difference, if any, that makes is unclear.  Three more countries (Chad, North Korea, and  Venezuela) were added, and Somalia, Syria, Libya, Iran, and Yemen were kept. Sudan was removed. Restrictions are tailored to each country and go into effect October 18 but have no end date.

 Whatever becomes of the cases before the Supreme Court, whether they are even argued, it's very hard to see how the new travel ban will not be challenged and how it will have to wend its way up to the Supreme Court as these cases did.

 Stay tuned, as of course I will.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stare Decisis: What It Is, Why It Is Important, And More Controversial Than You Might Think (Oh, And Spider-Man)

Image
Stare decisis might be the first Latin legal term you learn in law school.  It was for me.  But like all Latin terms, you quickly find an English equivalent: judicial precedent. The concept is both simple and complex, straightforward and convoluted.  It will be the subject of this post; it's also the subject of the book pictured above, all 910 pages of it.  I will attempt to make stare decisis--judicial precedent--a concept you can understand and maybe even apply.  And Spider-Man will help. First, the simple.  "Stare decisis" is Latin for "stand by things decided".*  In the simplest of terms, it is the doctrine of precedent, which is when an issue is brought to the court that has already been decided and there is a precedent--a case decided by the court that answers the issue before it--to that effect, and that is how the case should be decided.  If I am bringing a case about X and the court can point to a case that has already decided X (a precedent) I
Read more

Cakes and BBQ: Masterpiece Cake Shop, Ollie McClung and Piggy Park Enterprises

This post has taken an inordinately long time to write.  Thank you to all my loyal followers for your patience! Aside from the holidays and being sick (which coincided) there is also trying to figure out how to write something about a case that has received so much media attention. And as I stated in a previous post, I claim an exemption from my usual "not taking sides" approach; I just feel too strongly about this case. So here goes.  (If you need a refresher on what this case is about, see my post of 11/9/2017 on Masterpiece Cake Shop). By now you most likely know that the argument split along what is usually called ideological lines, with the conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas) being on the side of the baker and the liberal wing (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) being on the side of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, with Justice Kennedy playing the role of the swing vote. You may also have heard that some commentators believe that Kennedy wil
Read more

Welcome to Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat!

Image
Welcome to my blog!  It is a blog devoted first and foremost to "legal education for everyone".  No, I'm not trying to turn anyone into a lawyer (having taught at a law school I know what's involved in that).   Nor will I be using this blog to express my own legal opinions (though you can't talk about the law without doing some of that).  The goal is to provide information about the law and how it operates, usually focused on the legal newsworthy events of the day, though from time to time it may be a historic event that I think is important (or a legal oddity that I find interesting). First, an important caveat: this blog is not meant for, does not, and (according to the Rules of Professional Conduct) cannot provide any type of legal advice.  As they say, if you are in need of some legal advice, get a lawyer. Why this blog, you might ask?  It actually started with a series of postings on my Facebook page about the "travel ban" cases that
Read more