You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Government
Supreme Court Tosses Case Against Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’
2017-10-12
[BREITBART] The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a case against President Donald Trump
...New York real estate developer, described by Dems as illiterate, racist, misogynistic, and what ever other unpleasant descriptions they can think of, elected by the rest of us as 45th President of the United States...
’s controversial executive order restricting travel and immigration from several terror-prone states on Tuesday.

The reason: the president issued a new version of the order last month that replaces the older version that had been the subject of litigation in the Fourth Circuit, rendering the case moot.

Though many lower federal courts in liberal circuits ruled against the executive order, the Trump administration was set for victory in June, when the Supreme Court lifted an injunction against the enforcement of the so-called "travel ban," leaving the case to be argued in the fall. As Breitbart News noted at the time (original link):

Monday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction against most of President Donald Trump’s "travel ban" is a major victory ‐ and not just because he will be able to implement the policy, but because the case is only scheduled to be heard in the fall, i.e. in October at the earliest.

Because most of the controversial provisions of the executive order only last 90 days, Trump it could be fully implemented before the Court hears the case.

The Court is prevented from hearing disputes that are already moot. There must be an active case or controversy in order for challenges to the executive order to be heard.

Posted by:Fred

#4  making the case moot (pointless.) That was no hindrance to Chief Justice Roger Taney in his 1857 opinion of the Dred Scott case.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2017-10-12 14:44  

#3  They could not help but toss the case - the subect law had already been rescinded, making the case moot (pointless.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2017-10-12 09:29  

#2  By throwing it out, they avoid the challenge to unlimited judicial review of anything done by the Executive. Not as in checks and balances, but in the never ending assumption of power over the entire government appliance without constitutional constraints on their part.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2017-10-12 08:51  

#1  Surprising how the right appointment can sway a nation.
Posted by: Skidmark   2017-10-12 00:13  

00:00