Supreme Court dismisses one of two travel ban cases

Justices end 4th Circuit travel-ban challenge

Winning: Supreme Court Tosses Case Against Trump's 'Travel Ban'

Hawaii said in court documents filed Tuesday that the updated ban - set to take effect next week - is a continuation of President Donald Trump's "promise to exclude Muslims from the United States".

However, any effort by the court to clear the decks of the travel ban issue is likely to be short-lived.

The latest travel ban targets five countries included in two previous versions - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen - as well as Chad, North Korea and Venezuela.

One judge has already scheduled a hearing for Monday on a request to block Trump's new order before it kicks in next week.

First, the court dismissed a Maryland case in which a district court had temporarily blocked a key provision of the March order that halted travel from six Muslim-majority countries. Since its 90-day time limit had expired, the court decided the case should expire, too.

India Supreme Court rules sex with child bride is rape
The top court did not rule on " marital rape ", which is sexual intercourse forced upon a spouse no matter what their age. It also said child marriages were a reality in India where economic and educational development was uneven.

A separate case from the 9th Circuit, based in California, remains pending because it includes a ban on refugees worldwide that won't expire until later this month.

The decision effectively wipes the record clean in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, one of two federal appeals courts that had struck down major portions of Trump's travel ban. But the Supreme Court is likely to ditch that case, which began in Hawaii, as well.

After Trump replaced his order previously, the court delayed the case which was due this Tuesday.

Hawaii warned the justice that all parts of the earlier ban still could be reviewed since Trump wants a "much tougher version". "And the government urged the court to vacate the lower courts' decisions, so that they would not carry any legal weight in the future, describing such a step as essential to avoid "'legal consequences' in future cases, on critical issues including justiciability and the President's authority to protect national security".

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court's action. There must be an active case or controversy in order for challenges to the executive order to be heard. However, litigation challenging the September 24 proclamation could be well under way in the lower courts by that point.

Latest News