On Sunday, President Trump unleashed what he undoubtedly views as the freshest version of his travel ban yet. There have been so many incarnations, it’s hard to keep them all straight, but this one will be an “indefinite” (rather than a “temporary”) order that bars most travelers from seven countries — Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen — from entering the U.S. In the process, Trump accomplished two big goals: (1) Sticking it to Kim Jong-un; and (2) Adding a few non-Muslim majority countries in an attempt to ward off the legal argument that this is a religious ban.
However and for the time being, legal arguments won’t have to be made, at least not at the Supreme Court level, for the justices have cancelled the scheduled October 10 hearing that would have weighed the constitutionality of the order as a whole. The New York Times notes that the court may take the case up again, or it may not, but SCOTUS asked attorneys on both sides to submit new briefs on the latest ban revisions by October 5:
The justices asked the parties to address “whether, or to what extent, the proclamation” may render the case moot. The court also asked for briefings on a question not addressed in the proclamation, concerning the earlier ban’s suspension of the nation’s refugee program. That suspension is scheduled to expire next month. On that question, too, the court asked the parties to explain whether the issue would soon be moot.
What does this mean? The Supreme Court may have effectively decided to never hear arguments on the case (by deciding that it’s moot), which would place the burden on the White House concerning appeals court decisions on previous versions of the ban. However, it’s hard to imagine that the Trump administration wouldn’t request for SCOTUS to vacate these rulings. And this court has been friendly toward Trump’s bans in the past — letting a recent version to temporarily go into effect and allowing Trump to bar most refugees from entering the U.S. — so any request to vacate would probably be granted.
However, it’s also likely that the court has decided to simply let the newest version of Trump’s ban kick up some dirt and lawsuits, which will beg for further Supreme Court action with a focus on his newest targeted restrictions against the seven disfavored countries (with some additional scrutiny on Venezuela and Iraq). This is all so exhausting, and the justices might simply want to rest up before that storm arrives. And it will.
(Via New York Times)