In Victory for Trump, Supreme Court Drops 1 Travel Ban Case

In Victory for Trump, Supreme Court Drops 1 Travel Ban Case

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court quashed the appeal decision on the Maryland ruling, with the suspension in Hawaii still valid but its days likely numbered.

There were no prominent dissident from the court's resolution to avoid hearing disputes about the travel ban; however Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have left in place exemplar of the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Dismissing the cases would allow the court to avoid ruling on hard legal issues, at least for a while. This means that the justices could also dismiss that case, but even if they do, they are probably not done with the issues at the heart of both cases - whether the Trump administration's restrictions on entry into the United States violate the Constitution or exceed the president's authority.

The Supreme Court dismissed a major challenge to President Donald Trump's travel ban on residents of some Muslim-majority countries because of its replacement with a newer version.

The ban's challengers argued that the case against the last version should go forward because numerous same travelers and their families are adversely affected - not just for 90 days, but indefinitely.

A hearing on the ACLU's case is scheduled before a Maryland federal judge on October 17. Succeeding the habitual practice in such cases, The judgment is therefore abdicated and the case is adjourned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with directives to disperse as moot the provocation.

Steelers can't turn back the clock on Big Ben
Chris Reed is also an important player for the offense in the game against the Steelers as the first right guard backup. However, the defense is playing above expectations when the Steelers face the Jacksonville Jaguars on Sunday (10 a.m.

The second ban had prevented travel to the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the 4th Circuit challenge on behalf of the refugee group, had said charges of anti-Muslim discrimination still applied "despite some new window dressing" - a reference to the addition of North Korea and Venezuela.

However, the original refugee ban is also scheduled to expire soon, no doubt to be replaced by an altered version.

The ban's challengers also argued that the case against the last version should go forward because numerous same travelers in the initial band are being targeted by the new ban, which has an indefinite time frame.

Related Articles