Judging the Travel Ban-and Judges

The Supreme Court Will Hear A Case Challenging Trump's Third Travel Ban Attempt

Supreme Court Will Review Challenge To Travel Ban 3.0

The case concerns Trump's third bid to make good on a campaign promise to secure the nation's borders.

Trump ended the program, which grants two-year work permits to almost 800,000 young people who were brought into the US illegally by their parents last September.

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to uphold Trump's decision and "resolve the dispute this Term".

The appellate court ruled the executive order failed to support its conclusion that allowing the entry of those foreign nationals "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States".

The case is to be argued in April, with a decision expected by June. As a result, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced that "until further notice", DACA is back in place.

The U.S. Justice Department said on Thursday it had asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling last week that blocked President Donald Trump's move to end a program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

Thousands of Women March for Equal Rights, in US, Around World
The mass protests commemorate a year since the historic Women's March on January 21, 2017, a day after Trump's inauguration. Saturday's NY march will be one of an estimated 250 women's marches planned for Saturday and Sunday around the world.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the law on immigration, and the president is given the duty to enforce it.

The nation's highest court decided in early December to let the order take effect in full while it worked its way through two appeals courts. The high court agreed to assess whether the bid to impose a variety of travel restrictions for nationals. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The American Civil Liberties Union pursued a separate legal challenge filed in Maryland that is now before the Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. That policy is materially indistinguishable from the DAPA and expanded DACA policies that the Fifth Circuit held were contrary to federal immigration law in a decision that four Justices of this Court voted to affirm. The latest order, they said, was infected by the same flaws as the previous one. The order issued Friday afternoon referred specifically to the constitutional question as proposed in Hawaii's legal brief. Nine days before the September order was released, Katyal wrote, "the president demanded a "larger, tougher and more specific" ban, reminding the public that he remains committed to a "travel ban" even if it is not 'politically correct'".

Restrictions on Venezuelan officials or immigrants from North Korea have not been affected by the ongoing litigation.

Francisco said discrimination had played no role in the September order. Moreover, the stakes for the noncitizens, as well as the states, are significant enough to warrant Supreme Court review.

Information for this article was contributed by Adam Liptak of The New York Times; by Mark Sherman of The Associated Press; and by Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.

Latest News