The Left Gets Its Own Charlottesville
Pro-Hamas Activists March on NYPD HQ After Police Start Dismantling NYU's Pro-Hamas Camp
A Girl Went to Wendy's and Ended Up With Permanent Brain Damage
Patriots Owner to Columbia University: Say Goodbye to My Money
Democrats Are Going to Get Someone Killed and They’re Perfectly Fine With It
Postcards From the Edge of Cannibalism
Why Small Businesses Hate Bidenomics
The Empire Begins to Strike Back
The Empires Begin to Strike Back
With Cigarette Sales Declining, More Evidence Supports the Role of Flavored Vapes in...
To Defend Free Speech, the Senate Should Reject the TikTok Ban
Congress Should Not Pass DJI Drone Ban Legislation
Republican Jewish Coalition Endorses Bob Good's Primary Opponent Due to Vote Against Aid...
Here's What Kathy Hochul, Chuck Schumer Are Saying About Columbia University's Pro-Hamas P...
Minnesota State Sen. Arrested for Burglary, Raising 'Big Implications' Over Razor-Thin Maj...
Tipsheet

SCOTUS Tosses One of the Challenges to Travel Ban

The Supreme Court on Tuesday night tossed out one of the challenges to President Trump’s travel ban because a new version has replaced it.

In dismissing the case the International Refugee Assistance Project brought against the administration, the justices said “we express no view on the merits.”

Advertisement

The executive order banning people from six countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—expired on September 24, so the case is now moot. 

“Because that provision of the order ‘expired by its own terms’ on September 24, 2017, the appeal no longer presents a ‘live case or controversy,” the Supreme Court said. 

The court had originally planned to hear two cases challenging the order on Oct. 10, but cancelled arguments after Trump issued new, targeted restrictions on travel from eight countries -- Chad, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia. The court ordered the parties in both cases to file additional briefs arguing whether the case is now moot given the new order.

The International Refugee Assistance Project pushed the court to hear the case.

"Plaintiffs retain an all-too-real stake in the outcome of the case," the group's attorney, Omar Jadwat, said in a filing to the court on Oct. 5.

"The 90-day ban on their relatives has now been converted into an indefinite ban with the potential to separate their families, and thousands of others’, for years." (The Hill)

Advertisement

Jadwat argued the new executive order does not change the “religious condemnation” present in the earlier version, "which – despite some new window dressing – continues to relay a message of disparagement to the plaintiffs and other members of their faith."

The court has not yet announced whether it plans to hear the other challenge to the order brought by the state of Hawaii regarding Trump’s ban stopping the refugee resettlement program in the U.S. for 120 days.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement