# data[].attributes.body
Word Document

# data[].attributes.body
Positive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This afternoon, in a pair of short orders, the Supreme Court ruled that the latest version of the so-called "travel ban" can go into effect. Its ruling effectively lifted nationwide injunctions put in place in October by federal district court judges in Hawaii and Maryland. Both of those lower court decisions were seriously flawed. Here's what I wrote when the rulings were issued:

One gets the feeling that at least some federal judges are in the grips of the belief that Trump is a unique threat and that existing law simply doesn't check him enough. So they stretch. They reach beyond the maximum limits of their existing power and create new precedents that not only exceed their authority but will almost certainly exacerbate the ongoing problem of judicial supremacy, of viewing the judicial branch as the arbiters of what's prudent and wise, not what's lawful and constitutional.

The governing statute granted President Trump immense power

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

In previous cases, the lower courts effectively added to the statute, essentially holding that the president had to prove that his finding met the judge's arbitrary standards of policy prudence. Other courts held that the presidential finding could in essence be invalidated by Trump's "anti-Muslim" rhetoric, regardless of the text of the order. Both lines of reasoning represented dangerous expansions of judicial authority over Congress, which wrote the governing statute, and the President charged with enforcing it.

The current Supreme Court ruling deals a blow to judicial efforts to stop Trump's travel ban, but it doesn't end the case. The Court is simply allowing the ban to be enforced while the courts of appeal in the Ninth and Fourth Circuits issue their rulings on the legality of the bans. The Supreme Court is waiting to render its final judgment until appeals from either circuit are properly presented to the court.

So this Trump victory is temporary, but it's hardly meaningless. Not only does it allow the Trump administration to enforce its order, it also provides a hint as to the Court's leanings in the case. After all, to obtain an injunction, a plaintiff has to demonstrate, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying claim. The Court's decision to stay the Hawaii and Maryland injunctions may well indicate that the Court has a decisively different view of the merits. Time will tell, but for now Trump wins a round.

David French - David French is a senior writer forNational Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. @DavidAFrench

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Wins Another Travel Ban Victory at the Supreme Court | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This afternoon, in a pair of short orders, the Supreme Court ruled that the latest version of the so-called "travel ban" can go into effect. Its ruling effectively lifted nationwide injunctions put in place in October by federal district court judges in Hawaii and Maryland. Both of those lower court decisions were seriously flawed.

# data[].attributes.body
Neutral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday announced it would decide the legality of the latest version of President Trump's controversial travel ban that affects residents of six majority-Muslim countries. The ban applies to people from Syria, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

The news comes after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ban in December 2017. At the time, the justices said the policy can take full effect despite multiple legal challenges against it that haven't yet made their way through the judicial system.

Since the president signed an executive order in January establishing a ban on travel of people from Muslim-majority nations, it has been a point of contention and challenged in court. Here's a look at the ban's journey through the legal system.

Jan. 19 - Supreme Court announces it will rule on the travel ban

The Supreme Court announced on Jan. 19 that it will rule on Trump's controversial travel ban. The justices plan to hear arguments in April and issue a final ruling by late June.

Dec. 4 - Supreme Court OKs full enforcement of Trump travel ban

Handing the White House a huge judicial victory, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump's travel ban affecting residents of six majority-Muslim countries.

Lower courts had said people from those countries with a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be prevented from entry.

Grandparents and cousins were among the relatives courts said could not be excluded.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have left the lower court orders in place.

Oct. 17 - Federal judge temporarily blocks travel ban

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson granted a request from Hawaii to temporarily block a version of Trump's travel ban, which was supposed to take effect at midnight ET on Oct. 18.

Hawaii argued that the revised ban - which included citizens from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, and some Venezuelan government officials and their families - was a continuation of Trump's "promise to exclude Muslims from the United States."

"Today's dangerously flawed district court order undercuts the President's efforts to keep the American people safe and enforce minimum security standards for entry into the United States," the White House said in a statement. "The Department of Justice will vigorously defend the President's lawful action."

Oct. 10 - Supreme Court dismisses one case

The Supreme Court didn't take action on a case that originated in Hawaii pertaining to Trump's travel ban and a ban on refugees.

However, it did dismiss another case that originated in Maryland. That case involved a ban that has since expired and been replaced with a new one by the administration.

Oct. 5 - Justice Department asks Supreme Court to drop travel ban case

The Department of Justice asked the nation's highest court to dismiss the case challenging the administration's travel ban. The administration argued the case should be dismissed because it was regarding a previous travel ban that is now moot.

Sept. 24 - Trump signs new travel ban

As Trump's original ban was set to expire, the president unveiled new restrictions on travel to the U.S. from certain countries' citizens.

The revised ban included citizens from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also included some government officials from Venezuela.

Sept. 12 - Supreme Court lifts restrictions

The Supreme Court blocked a lower court's decision that would have allowed refugees to enter the country under certain conditions, blocking a ruling that said a resettlement agency counts as a "bona fide relationship."

Sept. 7 - Appeals court limits travel ban

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that would allow for more refugees to enter the country despite the ban. The federal court ruled that refugees working with a resettlement agency would be considered to have established an approved "bona fide relationship" with a contact in the U.S.
WHO DOES TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN BLOCK FROM ENTERING THE US?
It also expanded the scope of a "bona fide relationship" to include other family members, such as grandparents and other relatives.

July 19 - Supreme Court allows for strict enforcement of refugee ban

The Supreme Court, temporarily, allowed for the administration's travel ban to keep a strict enforcement on its ban of refugees. It did, however, leave in place the court order that made it easier for travelers from the six Muslim-majority countries to enter the U.S. and allowed a previous expansion of "bona fide relationships" to stay.

July 13 - Federal judge expands scope of travel ban

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, in Hawaii, ruled that a "bona fide relationship" certain travelers need before entering the U.S. could be expanded to include grandparents and other relatives.

The Justice Department filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court for clarification.

June 29 - Travel ban goes into effect

After the Supreme Court's ruling, the Trump administration issued guidance on who would be allowed into the country and who would be barred.

June 26 - Supreme Court allows for travel ban to continue

The Supreme Court announced it would allow Trump to forge ahead with a limited version of his travel ban. Trump hailed the decision as a "victory for national security."
HAWAII GETS CHANCE TO MAKE CASE FOR FIGHTING 3RD TRAVEL BAN
The court said it would hear arguments in October, but until then, the ban on travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen could be enforced if the visitors lacked a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

May 25 - Travel ban blocked by federal court

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia blocked the travel ban from being implemented. It had begun to hear the case earlier in May.

"We remain unconvinced [the ban] has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President's promised Muslim ban," the court said at the time.

March 30 - Trump administration appeals ruling

The Department of Justice filed an appeal with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the ruling against the travel ban.

March 29 - Federal judge continues to block travel ban

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson granted a request to continue to halt the travel ban.

March 16 - Another federal judge temporarily blocks the order

Sitting in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang temporarily halted the executive order. The injunction was not as comprehensive as the one issued earlier in Hawaii, but it did contend that the ban was discriminatory toward Muslims.
MEGA-COMPANIES DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM CHARITIES FOUND DONATING TO ANTI-TRUMP GROUP
The order did not change the previous injunction in Hawaii, but rather just reinforced it.

March 15 - Federal judge blocks travel ban

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson prevented the travel ban from being implemented just before it was set to take effect. Watson granted the state of Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order.

Trump called the decision an "unprecedented judicial overreach."

March 8 - Hawaii sues to block the travel ban

The state of Hawaii sued in an attempt to halt the Trump administration's travel ban from going into effect. Lawyers said the "new executive order is resulting in the establishment of religion in the State of Hawaii contrary to its state Constitution."

Lawyers also argued that the ban would damage Hawaii's "economy, educational institutions and tourism industry; and it is subjecting a portion of the state's citizens to second-class treatment and discrimination, while denying all Hawaii residents the benefits of an inclusive and pluralistic society."

March 6 - Trump unveils new travel ban

Trump signed a new executive order which barred travel from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days - removing Iraq from the new ban.

The new order also exempted permanent residents and current visa holders from the travel ban. Syrian refugees were still included in the new order but only for 120 instead of indefinitely.

Feb. 15 - Trump's travel ban gets a defender

Texas Attorney Ken Paxton split with other states and defended the travel ban as he filed documents with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking to reconsider a decision blocking the ban.

Paxton argued that the order is a legal exercise of presidential authority.

Feb. 13 - Federal judge grants injunction against ban

A federal judge in Virginia granted an injunction to prevent the administration from implementing the ban.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said the ban was unconstitutional as it had a religious bias.

Feb. 9 - Travel ban is again blocked

The travel ban's suspension was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a unanimous decision.
MUSLIM ADVOCATES, LEGAL ORG FILES SUITS OVER TRAVEL BAN
Those judges were Michelle Friedland, appointed by former President Barack Obama; Richard Clifton, appointed by former President George W. Bush; and William Canby, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter.

The court began to hear arguments from the Justice Department and lawyers from the states of Washington and Maryland - in opposition to the ban - on Feb. 7.

Feb. 6 - Justice Department asks federal court to intervene

The Justice Department filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking it to intervene and reverse a previous judge's decision to halt the travel ban.

Sixteen attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit against the travel ban. Those included: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Feb. 3 - Judge declines to extend injunction against travel ban

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton did not extend a temporary injunction against the administration's travel ban.

But U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle did issue a temporary block of the ban on the same day.

"The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury," Robart said as he ruled in favor of lawyers from the states of Washington and Minnesota.

Feb. 1 - Administration tweaks travel ban

The Trump administration tweaked its travel ban to exempt legal permanent residents of the U.S.
AFGHAN GIRLS ROBOTICS TEAM ARRIVES IN US JUST IN TIME
"They no longer need a waiver because if they are a legal permanent resident, they won't need it anymore," then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer said of green card holders.

Jan. 30 - Senate Republicans save travel ban from Democrats

Senate Republicans squashed an effort by Democrats to overturn the executive order. When Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. sought a vote on legislation to reverse the ban, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., objected.

Trump also fired acting Attorney Gen. Sally Yates on this day when she refused to defend the travel ban.

Jan. 29 - Temporary stay issued on travel ban

A Boston federal court temporarily put Trump's travel ban on hold for one week.

The ruling stipulated that previously approved refugees, valid visa holders and lawful permanent residents or travelers from the seven countries included in Trump's order could not be detained or removed from the U.S. because of the executive order.

Jan. 28 - Federal judge issues emergency injunction against ban

A federal judge in New York issued an emergency order blocking, in part, the executive order. U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly's ruling temporarily barred the U.S. from deporting people who arrived with a valid visa or who had already completed a refugee application.

As dozens of people were detained after their planes landed in the U.S., massive protests erupted at airports nationwide.

Jan. 27 - Trump signs executive order barring travel from seven Muslim-majority nations

Trump signed an executive order which immediately barred entry into the U.S. for the citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The order, dubbed "Protection the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," also halted the U.S. refugee program for 120 days, but indefinitely barred all Syrian refugees from entering the country.
Fox News' Barnini Chakraborty and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Kaitlyn Schallhorn is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter @K_Schallhorn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump travel ban: Timeline of a legal journey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday announced it would decide the legality of the latest version of President Trump's controversial travel ban that affects residents of six majority-Muslim countries. The ban applies to people from Syria, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. The news comes after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ban in December 2017.

# data[].attributes.body
Negative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Under President Donald Trump's first travel ban, immigration officials stopped almost 2,000 people in nine days in airports, at border crossings and even on boats across the country. The majority of the people stopped were documented United States residents.

To be precise: Of the 1,903 men and women U.S. Customs and Border Protections agents stopped for secondary inspections between January 27, 2017, and February 4, 2017, 1,457 of them, or roughly 77 percent, were legal, permanent residents in the country, according to a new report from the agency. As for the remaining 446 people, at least 134 withdrew their request for entry into the United States, a move BuzzFeed News explained would require them to exit the country immediately.

Trump's first travel ban went into effect just one week into his presidency, when he signed an executive order blocking refugees as well as visa and green card holders from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. The ban incited mass protests across the country, particularly in airports in major cities, where authorities detained dozens of legal U.S. residents in an attempt to implement an executive action they had no idea how to enforce in practice.

From there, Trump's ban entered a complicated legal battle, which came to involve the Supreme Court in December 2017. At the time, the court ruled that a new, third version of the president's ban could take effect. The revision targeted Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela and Yemen.

"The Constitution and acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prevent aliens abroad from entering this country when he deems it in the nation's interest," solicitor general Noel Francisco wrote in his argument in favor of the ban, which he said was necessary to "protect national security."

That doesn't mean the fight against Trump's ban is over. In February, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decided in a 9-4 vote that this latest iteration of Trump's original executive order also violated the Constitution, arguing that it's "tainted with animus toward Islam."

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

"On a fundamental level, the Proclamation second-guesses our nation's dedication to religious freedom and tolerance," Chief Justice Roger Gregory wrote in his majority opinion.

Trump's travel ban was among the president's earliest and most-promised campaign pledges. In December 2015, about six months after announcing his candidacy, Trump called for a " total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who got stopped under Trump's first travel ban? Legal United States residents, mostly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under President Donald Trump's first travel ban, immigration officials stopped almost 2,000 people in nine days in airports, at border crossings and even on boats across the country. The majority of the people stopped were documented United States residents. To be precise: Of the 1,903 men and women U.S.