After months of delays by Hawaiian and San Franciscan judges’ rulings, The Supreme Court has just agreed to to review the legality of President Trump’s latest ‘adjusted’ Travel Ban.
As The Hill reports, the decision comes about two months after the court granted the administration’s request to fully reinstate the ban, and are now agreeing agreeing to hear his appeal of a decision that said he overstepped his authority by restricting entry into the country by people from six mostly Muslim countries.
The Supreme Court let the travel ban take full effect in December.
That order effectively superseded a compromise the justices reached in June, when they let an earlier version go partially into effect. The policy is now in its third form.
The current version bars or limits entry by people from Iran, Syria, Chad, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. The ban also blocks people from North Korea and a handful of Venezuelan government officials, though those aspects of the policy aren’t at issue in the high court case.
The case could produce a definitive ruling by late June on the legal issues that have dogged the travel ban since Trump signed the first version a week after his January 2017 inauguration, causing protests and widespread confusion at U.S. airports.
The court will hear arguments in April.
As Bloomberg details, Justice Department lawyers told the court that federal immigration laws “confer sweeping authority on the president to restrict the entry of aliens abroad.“
A San Francisco-based federal appeals said the immigration statutes don’t let the president exclude such broad categories of people and explicitly bar him from discriminating on the basis of nationality.
Opponents also contend Trump is violating the Constitution by discriminating against Muslims. Although the appeals court didn’t reach that issue, the Supreme Court said it will consider it.
The case the court will hear stems from a lawsuit filed by Hawaii, some of its residents and a Muslim group based there. They say the travel ban has no precedent in U.S. history.
Trump’s lawyers say the refinements made to the travel ban, including the decisions over the last year to drop the Muslim-majority countries of Iraq and Sudan, show the policy isn’t aimed at a particular religion.
“The proclamation’s process and substance confirm that its purpose was to achieve national security and foreign-policy goals, not to impose anti-Muslim bias,” the administration argued.
Of course, with the Gorsuch confirmation, the court now leans more conservative and so some might suggest the decision will favor Trump’s ban, disappointing millions of leftists nationwide.
Rather notably, as the travel ban news was breaking, paramedics treated U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for low blood sugar at her Washington home Friday, but the 63-year-old justice, who has type 1 diabetes, was able to go to work and is doing fine, a court spokeswoman said.
“Justice Sotomayor experienced symptoms of low blood sugar at her home this morning,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said. “She was treated by D.C. Emergency Medical Services and is doing fine. She came to work, followed her usual schedule, and will be participating in planned activities over the weekend.”