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 reaction to John Kerry sitting down with Iranian leaders to discuss U.S. policy?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Showdown hearing not set yet: Dems, GOP arguing on witnesses
Review underway for Russia probe documents ordered released
  Trump to visit North Carolina on Wednesday
Wilmington Isle: Food, water handouts set in isolated city
Russia blames Israel for shooting down of plane off Syria
US puts 30,000 cap on 2019 refugee program

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Prof says men, women biologically different, college goes bonkers
Good grief! Study warns against saying 'boys will be boys'
No surprise: Americans don’t like racial preferences
UC Berkeley law school moves to rename building over racism concerns
Muslims want British government to ban Franklin Graham

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.