Trump delays effective date of travel ban amid court battle

Erica Roy
June 21, 2017

Though the ban never took effect, thanks to nationwide injunctions issued in Hawaii and Maryland, opponents have argued that the cases over the ban will become moot when the term expires.

"As has been noted numerous times, there was a provision in each Executive Order to make the ban permanent by Presidential decree", Modarres said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon ordered a new round of legal briefs in the controversy over President Trump's executive order seeking to impose new immigration restrictions, giving itself the option of considering on June 22 what to do with the two cases before it. The Hawaii judge also blocked a 120-day ban on refugees entering the United States. Trump nominated Gorsuch in January. It is common practice for presidents to attend such events, which are purely ceremonial.

President Trump has promised to take the fight for the travel ban, one of his signature campaign promises, all the way to the Supreme Court.

Hawaii's lawyer, Neal Katyal, filed his own letter objecting to the government's timeline, although he agreed that both sides needed to file briefs responding to Monday's ruling.

Plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit case had argued to the Supreme Court that the 90-day ban on nationals from six designated countries ended on Wednesday, which is 90 days from the "effective date" of March 16 written into the executive order.

That 90-day period was about to expire, with some challengers of the ban using the lapsing timetable to reason that the executive order was now moot.

Chair of the Committee on Migration for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin said he was "heartened" by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. They are also considering a separate case, from Maryland, that was decided in May by a different appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. "As the government says, there is no doubt that this executive order 'has been the subject of passionate political debate.' But whatever one's views, 'the precedent set by this case for the judiciary's proper role in reviewing the president's national security and immigration authority will transcend this debate, this order, and this constitutional moment'".

Legendary journalist Lyle Denniston is Constitution Daily's Supreme Court correspondent.

Trump's first order on January 27 led to chaos and protests at airports and in various cities before being blocked by the courts.

Other reports by VideoGamingPros

Discuss This Article