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

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)

Welcome to Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat!

Oral Argument: Carpenter v. United States: Audio, Transcript, Thoughts