As I posted last week, in the latest review of the Trump “travel ban” the Ninth Circuit made a point of ruling that the US Supreme Court was in error when it allowed the second iteration of the travel ban to go into effect. The Supreme Court specifically said in its ruling that refugees without some demonstrable family connection to the United States could be barred. The Ninth Circuit ruled that refugees could not be barred.
The administration immediately appealed the ruling and Anthony Kennedy blocked the Ninth Circuit’s injunction pending a review by the whole court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Trump administration Tuesday and put on hold a lower-court decision that would have allowed more refugees to enter the country.
The court issued a one-paragraph statement granting the administration’s request for a stay of the latest legal maneuvering involving the president’s executive order on immigration. There were no recorded dissents to the decision.
At issue is whether the president can block a group of about 24,000 refugees, who have assurances from sponsors, from entering the United States. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had interpreted a Supreme Court directive this summer to mean that such refugees should be allowed in, but the government objected.
The latest court actions are part of a complicated legal battle that began in January when President Trump issued his first version of an entry ban. The Supreme Court is to consider the merits of his actions at a hearing Oct. 10.
The rapid action of the Supreme Court in this case most likely means that they agree with the administration’s interpretation of the actual language of the Court’s last ruling.
Mark Levin weighed in on the subject yesterday, and I think he gets it exactly right. This is not a victory because this order should never have been in the courts to begin with and every court ruling on the issue is a further usurpation of power by the judiciary.
“Pop the champagne bottles, I guess, because the Supreme Court didn’t do any damage,” Levin said, sarcastically. “The fact it’s in the courts is damage enough.”
“[The] radical leftists, mostly appointed by Barack Millhouse Benito Obama, to the federal courts, who are now appointed for life … do not conduct themselves as judges, objective when it comes to the law,” Levin explained.
“But they view themselves as masterminds in black robes. That’s what judicial activists are.”
The president of the United States is granted plenary power to control immigration policy, and judges shouldn’t have a say in the matter, Levin added.
Even if you don’t agree that the president has plenary power over immigration (I happen to think he does because State issues visas and, absent orders to the contrary in the form of legislation, it totally controls that process), you have to agree that if Congress disagrees with the president’s interpretation of the executive’s power, it is an issue for Congress to take up.