Story highlights Travel ban has not gone into effect

Would block entry from six Muslim-majority countries

Washington (CNN) The Trump administration Thursday night asked the Supreme Court to allow the President's travel ban that blocks entry from six Muslim-majority countries to go into effect.

In its filings, the administration asked the nine justices to consider the legality of President Donald Trump's executive order, a move that appeals a ruling by the 4th Circuit that upheld a nationwide halt to the ban.

The case marks the President's first test of his travel ban in the nation's highest court after multiple stinging rebukes of his national security justifications for the ban in the lower federal courts.

Last month, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed a federal judge's decision from March, which found the core provision of the revised executive order -- temporarily blocking foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US -- likely violates the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavor Muslims.

The 4th Circuit held that the executive order is composed of "vague words of national security" but in context "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination."

Read More</s>The fight over President Trump’s travel ban reached the Supreme Court late Thursday night, in the form of three urgent requests from the Justice Department.

Here is a look at where things stand, and the justices’ options.

What is happening in the Supreme Court?

The Justice Department filed a petition seeking review of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., that blocked the Trump administration’s proposed limits on travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

The government asked the justices to act a little faster than usual, urging them to decide whether to hear the case before they leave for their summer break. But that would still defer arguments to the fall, with a decision to follow.

“The stakes are indisputably high: The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism,” the government’s brief said.</s>The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court late Thursday to let the revised travel ban take effect.

The administration filed two emergency applications with the nine Court justices seeking to block two lower court rulings that blocked President Trump’s executive order.

In the filing, the Justice Department argued that the appeals court in Richmond, Va. made several mistakes in ruling against Trump’s travel order.

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the ban is lawful.

The order barred entry for people from six Muslim majority nations, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the U.S. implements stricter visa screenings.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the national security concerns an after-the-fact justification for a policy that was "intended to bar Muslims from this country."

Fox News’ Serafin Gomez and the Associated Press contributed to this report.</s>The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court late Thursday to let the revised travel ban take effect.</s>Washington (CNN) The Trump administration Thursday night asked the Supreme Court to allow the President's travel ban that blocks entry from six Muslim-majority countries to go into effect.

In its filings, the administration asked the nine justices to consider the legality of President Donald Trump's executive order, a move that appeals a ruling by the 4th Circuit that upheld a nationwide halt to the ban.

The case marks the President's first test of his travel ban in the nation's highest court after multiple stinging rebukes of his national security justifications for the ban in the lower federal courts.

Last month, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed a federal judge's decision from March, which found the core provision of the revised executive order -- temporarily blocking foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US -- likely violates the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavor Muslims.

The 4th Circuit held that the executive order is composed of "vague words of national security" but in context "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination."

Thursday night's petition will be referred to the full court and the justices will likely ask for a response from the challengers.

With the arrival of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, the court is back to full strength with five conservatives and four liberals. But it is not certain that the justices would break down along ideological lines. The travel ban touches not just on immigration, but it involves issues such as the authority of the executive and the issue of religious freedom.

"The Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation's interest, " wrote Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall.

He said that while the executive order has been the subject of "passionate political debate," the lower court opinion "failed to adhere to foundational legal rules."

"The President is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States," said Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores.

The ACLU, one of the challengers to the travel ban, tweeted "We've beat this hateful ban and are ready to do it again, @realDonaldTrump."

The administration argues the travel ban should be allowed to go into effect now while the court looks at the ultimate legality of Trump's executive order later this year, said CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas Law School Steve Vladeck.

"It's an interesting procedural move, but the fact that it's taken this long may undermine, at least to some extent, the Trump administration's core argument that the entry ban, which has never gone into full effect, is essential to protect our national security," Vladeck said.

"Thus, while it seems likely that the court will eventually hear the government's challenge, the real question now is what happens in the interim," Vladeck added. "Are there five votes to grant a stay and allow the ban to go into effect, or will everything remain frozen until the court has the last word."

It would take five justices to agree to the stay application. According to Supreme Court rules, the justices would consider whether there is a "reasonable probability" that four of the justices would eventually agree to hear the case and a "fair prospect" that a majority of the court will hold that the opinion below was erroneous. They would also consider whether" irreparable harm" will result from the denial of they stay.

In a flurry of legal filings, the Justice Department also asked the court to put a separate injunction on hold that was issued by a district court judge in Hawaii in late March.</s>The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court late Thursday to let the revised travel ban take effect.

The administration filed two emergency applications with the nine Court justices seeking to block two lower court rulings that blocked President Trump’s executive order.

In the filing, the Justice Department argued that the appeals court in Richmond, Va. made several mistakes in ruling against Trump’s travel order.

Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the ban is lawful.

The Justice Department is "confident that President Trump's executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism," Flores said. “The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States."

The order barred entry for people from six Muslim majority nations, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the U.S. implements stricter visa screenings.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the national security concerns an after-the-fact justification for a policy that was "intended to bar Muslims from this country."

Rights groups that have been fighting the policy in the courts said the justices should not allow the travel and refugee bans to take effect.

"Again and again, our nation's courts have found that President Trump's Muslim ban is unconstitutional. We will continue to defend our plaintiffs' right to live free from fear of discriminatory treatment by the federal government," said Karen Tumlin, legal director of the National Immigration Law Center.

Trump signed his first executive order on travel a week after he took office in January. It applied to travelers from the six countries as well as Iraq and took effect immediately, causing chaos and panic at airports as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out who the order covered and how it was to be implemented.

A federal judge blocked it eight days later, an order that was upheld by a 9th Circuit panel. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy.

In March, Trump issued a narrower order, but federal courts that have examined it so far have blocked it as well.

Fox News’ Serafin Gomez and the Associated Press contributed to this report.</s>WASHINGTON (dpa-AFX) - President Donald Trump's administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court rulings blocking an executive order banning immigration from six Muslim-majority countries.



The Trump administration filings Thursday night also ask the Supreme Court to temporarily lift the injunctions and allow the order to take effect, which would require support from five of the nine Justices.



'We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump's executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the Nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,' Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement. 



She added, 'The President is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.'



The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to expedite the case so that it could be heard near the beginning of the court's next term in October.



The administration had previously indicated its intention to appeal a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a ruling blocking Trump's travel ban.



In the 10-3 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month, the majority argued that Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail suggests the travel ban's primary purpose is religious.



The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the challengers to the travel ban, tweeted, 'We've beat this hateful ban and are ready to do it again.'



(Photo: Michael Vadon)



Copyright RTT News/dpa-AFX</s>The Trump administration Thursday night asked the Supreme Court to reinstate its travel ban blocking entry from six Muslim-majority countries.

In its filings, the administration asked the nine justices to consider the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order, a move that appeals a ruling by the 4th Circuit that upheld a nationwide halt to the ban.

The case marks the President’s first test of his travel ban in the nation’s highest court after multiple stinging rebukes of his national security justifications for the ban in the lower federal courts.

Last month, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed a federal judge’s decision from March, which found the core provision of the revised executive order — temporarily blocking foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US — likely violates the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavor Muslims.

“We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the Nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,” said Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores.

“The President is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.”

The administration argues the travel ban should be allowed to go into effect now while the court looks at the ultimate legality of Trump’s executive order later this year, said CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas Law School Steve Vladeck.

“It’s an interesting procedural move, but the fact that it’s taken this long may undermine, at least to some extent, the Trump administration’s core argument that the entry ban, which has never gone into full effect, is essential to protect our national security,” Vladeck said.

“Thus, while it seems likely that the Court will eventually hear the government’s challenge, the real question now is what happens in the interim,” Vladeck added. “Are there five votes to grant a stay and allow the ban to go into effect, or will everything remain frozen until the Court has the last word.”</s>The Trump Administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate its executive order temporarily banning travelers from several primarily-Muslim countries from entering the US.

The justice department filed the request Thursday night; a move that appeals a ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court upholding a nationwide halt to the temporary ban earlier this year.

In its ruling, the Fourth Circuit Court claimed the order, which appears to discriminate against Muslims, is likely unconstitutional.

But the Trump Administration is arguing the executive order should be allowed to go into effect now while the Supreme Court considers its legality.</s>President Donald Trump’s administration asked the US Supreme Court on Thursday to reinstate its temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim majority nations despite repeated setbacks in the lower courts.

In its filing, the government asked the top US court to rule on the legal standing of Trump’s order, appealing a ruling by the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a nationwide block of the travel ban.

It also asked the Supreme Court to lift another US-wide injunction issued by a federal judge in a separate case based in Hawaii. That case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision is pending.

The administration is “confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said.

“The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.”

The filing came one week after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling dealt a fresh blow to Trump’s efforts to push the controversial travel ban that has triggered mass protests and confusion at airports.

The Fourth Circuit said it “remained unconvinced” that the part of the measure naming the specific countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — had “more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the president’s promised Muslim ban.”

– “Indisputably high” stakes –

 It said it was unclear whether the government’s security concerns outweighed the plaintiffs’ concerns about discrimination.

The Court of Appeals “concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism,” the filing read.

That court’s decision “creates uncertainty about the president’s authority to meet those threats as the Constitution and acts of Congress empower and obligate him to do.”

Even if the Supreme Court takes the case, it is unlikely to hear it this term, which is due to end this month.

Trump issued his initial travel ban by executive order in January, but that measure — which banned entry to nationals from seven countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days — was quickly halted by the courts.

The administration said the travel ban was needed so it could evaluate existing screening methods protocols and set new ones.

A revised executive order in March meant to address concerns raised by the federal judges. It deleted Iraq from the list and removed an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

The order however was widely criticized, including by human rights activists and US states led by Democrats.

Federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii issued a nationwide block on the measure, sending the issue to the relevant appellate courts.

Given the case’s high-profile nature, the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia heard the arguments last week — bypassing the usual initial three-judge panel — for the first time in a quarter of a century.

Thirteen of the court’s 15 active judges took part. Two recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.

This post was syndicated from Nigeria News, Headlines and Opinions – The Guardian Nigeria Newspaper. Click here to read the full text on the original website.

Do you something awesome to share with the world? Click here to share

Do you ever have any question about anything you wish to ask and get answer? Click here to ask

Also, Like us on facebook
The Department of Justice asks the Supreme Court for expedited review of the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court's May 25 ruling that affirmed the Maryland district court decision to prevent implementation of revised Executive Order 13780, and let the travel ban take effect. The Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit has not announced its decision on a similar ruling from Hawaii.