Lower courts rebuked for joining 'Resist Trump' movement

Tuesday, April 24, 2018
 | 
Chris Woodward (OneNewsNow.com)

Supreme Court justices 2017The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in a case over President Trump's so-called "travel ban" – and one legal authority says the high court shouldn't even be considering it.

The arguments are about the executive order of the president, which restricted the entry of individuals from a certain number of countries, most of them with majority Muslim populations and all of them considered terrorist safe-havens.

"It shouldn't even be before the Supreme Court," argues Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. "The lower courts that have ruled against the president seem to be part of the 'Resist Trump' movement – and I say that because Congress long ago gave the power to the president to suspend the entry of aliens, or any class of aliens from any country, if he thought it was in the best interest of our national security."

According to Spakovsky, the president is under no obligation to explain why he's doing it, even though President Trump has stated that it's in the interest of national security.

von Spakovsky, Hans (Heritage)"That statute has, in prior years, always been upheld by the courts," notes the Heritage fellow, "and now suddenly the courts are holding that, Well, the president has gone beyond his authority."

Meanwhile, Spakvosky points out that Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama used this very same authority and statute to temporarily suspend the entry of aliens from particular countries. "And no one previously ever questioned the authority of the president to do that," he adds.

What about Justice Neil Gorsuch? The newest face on the Supreme Court has been the subject of many conversations after an immigration ruling that drew the ire of conservatives and center-right groups

"I think Justice Gorsuch in the immigration case that everyone has been talking about simply issued a decision in which he was interpreting a particular federal statute, a particular part of the immigration law that he said was too broad and too vague," answers Spakovsky. "The statute at issue in the travel ban case is not vague at all. It's very specific and it gives the president the authority to act exactly as he did."

As to when the Supreme Court might hand down its decision on the travel ban, Spakovsky suspects it will be included in the final rulings issued just before the high court takes its summer break.

Read Spakovsky's related article:
Hawaii has no case against revised travel executive order

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

MAKE A DONATION

Comments

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

What's your response to reports that the 2019 Scout Jamboree will make condoms and alcohol available to participants?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Judge: President can't block critics on Twitter
Latest: Bethea: New NFL policy 'not really a compromise'
Pompeo: Fate of US-NKorea summit rests with Kim Jong Un
Estimated 7,000 bodies may be buried at former asylum
Trump defends describing MS-13 gang members as 'animals'
Mexican Mafia busted for running crime in LA County jails
Trump seethes over Russia probe, calls for end to 'SPYGATE'

LATEST FROM THE WEB

The other America: The anti-gun Left is learning their tactics do not resonate in Santa Fe
Black students furious after Students of Color conference isn’t pro-black enough
NFL to players: Stand for anthem or stay in locker room
Sidestepping political debate, Super Bowl champion QB says he's honored to visit the White House
NFL national anthem policy stirs reaction as 49ers owner says he abstained

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day

REASON & COMPANY

NEXT STORY
At issue: Parsonage allowance – taxable or not?

cross on church steepleShould the government continue to offer a housing allowance for clergy? That's a decision coming up on federal appeal.