U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Part of Travel Ban Injunction, Agrees to Hear Case

Travel Ban ProtestFirst: No, this was not a vindication of the “TRAVEL BAN.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an opinion on the preliminary injunction entered by the 4th and 9th Circuits, as well as the government’s request that they hear the case (a “petition for certiorari” — that word is pronounced “sir-she-uh-ruh-ree,” for those wondering).  The tl;dr:

We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.

So, the Court will hear the case in the fall, but what part of the injunction did they put on hold?

The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to [the plaintiffs].  In practical terms, this means that §2(c) [and §6(b)] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

What it boils down to is this: the plaintiffs in this case were all alleging that they were denied access to attend to their family or business in the United States.  When you file a lawsuit, as a general rule, you can only ask the court to help you, not to right a wrong against the public.   Even if your case is a class-action, you can only seek to reach people “similarly situated” to you.

The lower courts enjoined the government from applying these two odious sections of the TRAVEL BAN to anyone.  But, since some people seeking entry have no connections to the U.S., those people are not similarly situated to these plaintiffs, and thus the Supreme Court narrowed the injunction to only those with some connection to U.S. persons or entities.

So, in summary:

  1. If you are accepted to university, are visiting a family member, or have been hired by a company in the U.S., the TRAVEL BAN is still on hold as to you.
  2. If you have no connection to the U.S. at all, you may have to wait a few months if you’re coming from one of the 6 Muslim countries Trump has banned — or get some family or business connections here first (the ruling isn’t quite clear if having “friends” to visit in the U.S. would count as a sufficient connection).
  3. In upholding the injunction as applied to those with a connection to the U.S., the Supreme Court is implying that the plaintiffs in this case are likely to win, because showing “likelihood of success on the merits” is required for any kind of injunction.  Good deal.

36 thoughts on “U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Part of Travel Ban Injunction, Agrees to Hear Case”

Add yours

  2. I find this odd. I seem to recall that in one of your other articles you claiming he could not ban anyone because of their country, religion etc because of the 14th Amendment. I seem to recall you going on a good bit about that. You also mentioned that a more recent 1965 law overruled what Trump was claiming gave him the authority to do what he did. I think that last one was in a comment section. Now, the SCOTUS lifted all that and said he can. Now you are focusing on just people who have a relative or prior business arrangement with the US. What about all the rest that SCOTUS approved to go into affect?

    From what I’ve heard/read from several sources, SCOTUS just threw the lower courts opinion in the trash can like at least one other person in the comment section and myself said it should. SCOTUS lifted basically the whole injunction except for a small part about people with ties to the USA. At this point, that last part could be overturned as well after the arguments are made later.

    To recap, those six countries are now banned from entry except in small exceptions. That is the exact thing so many said he could not do but is now going to be done with a 9-0 decision from SCOTUS from reports I’ve seen. Oh, why did SCOTUS do that, because the odds are, this is where the final decision is headed. I was just listening to a lawyer who filed papers with the court on this and he is saying he believes the entire order will be reinstated 100%.

    As I also pointed out, the 9th circuit has a history of making decisions that end this way. You tried to argue the point but it seems I was right. I’ve seen lawyers say that about 90 to 95% of the order can now go into effect which is basically saying the 9th and others were almost completely wrong. Keep in mind, I’m not a lawyer nor do I claim to be one either. I predicted they would be overturned. Now, in a very large part, they have.

    Reply

    1. > Now, the SCOTUS lifted all that and said he can

      Please re-read my words. SCOTUS did not say that “he can,” rather, they said that in order to help these particular plaintiffs, the injunction did not need to be so broad.

      > To recap, those six countries are now banned from entry except in small exceptions.

      Small exceptions? If you have *any* prior contact with U.S. persons, you’re in. That’s not a small exception. That’s a wide-open hole.

      Reply

      1. SCOTUS lifted the injunction right? People from those six countries can not enter unless they have ties to the country, right? From what I’ve heard, that means a relative or prior business ties. It doesn’t mean dropping a name and coming on in. The word “any” is not a word I’ve seen/heard from anyone else talking about this.

        The only person I’ve heard/read that says it is big, is you. SCOTUS just turned your whole argument on its head and threw it in the trash. No 14th Amendment protection for any person wanting to come here. No violation of the 1965 law that you were claiming made this illegal. Basically, you, the 9th Circuit court, which is a lose definition of a court to begin with, lost. The odd thing is, it was 9-0. It wasn’t even 5-4 or 6-3. Even the most liberal justices said the order was legal. Even that small part you are trying to hold onto could be overturned after the arguments are made and the decision is final this fall.

        You may want to stick with dealing with the TSA. You seem to make better arguments on that than this.

        Reply

          1. I read the first one too. I understood it the same way packetguy1 did and we both told you where you were wrong. Now the SCOTUS has confirmed what we said and shot down the 9th circuit and your claims. I don’t know how you can argue anything different than your claim lost. I guess if you wanted to spend time trying to spin it around enough, you could do that, I’d read it and tell you the same, SCOTUS shot down your claims.

  3. DHS Goes Biometric, Says Travelers Can Opt Out Of Face Scans By Not Traveling:

    DHS has decided air travel is the unsafest thing of all. In the wake of multiple fear mongering presidential directives — including a travel ban currently being contested in federal courts — the DHS has introduced several measures meant to make flying safer, but in reality would only make flying more of a pain in the ass.

    The government has argued in court that flying is a privilege, not a right, and the DHS seems hellbent on making fliers pay for every bit of that privilege. We’ve seen laptop bans introduced as a stick to push foreign airports to engage in more security theater and a threat to rifle through all travelers’ books and papers to ensure nobody’s reading explosive devices.

    Now, the DHS is going to be scanning everyone’s faces as they board/disembark international flights.
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170713/07133237778/dhs-goes-biometric-says-travelers-can-opt-out-face-scans-not-traveling.shtml

    Reply

    1. Legal experts say biometric exit practices at airports may be violating privacy laws;

      The practice is raising concerns among some legal experts, who say that the program may violate individual privacy protections and that Congress has not fully authorized it.

      Don’t be fooled by the term “testing,” says Harrison Rudolph, a law fellow at Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology. They are operational, at least in the sense that CBP is already using these systems to create “biometric exit records” for foreign nationals, he says.

      Congress has never expressly authorized the collection of facial scans from U.S. citizens at the border routinely and without suspicion. The Trump administration revised his executive order to clarify that the biometric exit program did not pertain to U.S. citizens.
      https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608255/if-you-get-your-face-scanned-the-next-time-you-fly-heres-what-you-should-know/

      Reply

  5. My Family and I Were Detained at Gunpoint and Then Held for Hours at the US-Canada Border. I’m Afraid It Will Happen Again:

    Two officers then took my then-14-year-old son to another room, patted him down, and told him to take off his clothes for a strip search. He refused to undress, and they didn’t force him, but he was still very upset by the experience. It still hurts me to think about it.

    After more than 10 hours, we were suddenly free to go. Seeing Abdi alive was overwhelming. I learned that his experience was even worse than ours: They had kept him handcuffed without food or water for hours until he passed out, and they had to call an ambulance. Officers questioned him about us, about his work, and about his religion. They wouldn’t let him speak to a lawyer.
    https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/my-family-and-i-were-detained-gunpoint-and-then-held-hours-us-canada-border-im

    Reply

  6. DHS, CBP Admit They Have No Legal Authority To Access Americans’ Social Media Accounts:

    Noting that border searches of electronic devices were increasing exponentially (more searches in February 2017 alone than in all of 2015), Senator Ron Wyden did two things: introduced a bill creating a warrant requirement for border electronic device searches and asked the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) about its new demands for social media/email account passwords.

    The DHS has responded [PDF] to Wyden’s questions, and the answers are a bit surprising.

    U.S. border officers aren’t allowed to look at any data stored only in the “cloud” — including social media data — when they search U.S. travelers’ phones, Customs and Border Protection acknowledged in a letter obtained Wednesday by NBC News.
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170713/11022137781/dhs-cbp-admit-they-have-no-legal-authority-to-access-americans-social-media-accounts.shtml

    Reply

  9. DHS Confirms There Will Be More And Greater Intrusiveness During Border Searches:

    “All items entering the country are subject to inspection, and CBP may seek the traveler’s assistance in presenting his or her effects including electronic devices in a condition that allows inspection of the item and its contents. This inspection may include searching computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones, and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players, and any other electronic or digital devices. In instances where an electronic device, or portions of the content on the device, are locked or password-protected or otherwise not readily available for inspection, CBP may take Iawful measures, as appropriate, to inspect the device and its contents consistent with longstanding authority to perform border searches. These practices are consistent with various laws authorizing searches and detention…”

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170718/08334037805/dhs-confirms-there-will-be-more-greater-intrusiveness-during-border-searches.shtml

    Reply

  10. EPIC Files FOIA Lawsuit Over Border Biometrics, Expanded Tracking:

    EPIC has filed a FOIA lawsuit against Customs and Border Protection for information about the agency’s deployment of a biometric entry/exit tracking system, including at US airports. Trump’s recent Executive Order regarding immigration ordered the expedited implementation of a biometric entry/exit tracking system, which will include U.S. citizens. Biometric techniques, including facial recognition, lack proper privacy safeguards.

    Click to access 1-Complaint.pdf

    Reply

  13. EPIC to Congress: Examine Facial Recognition Surveillance at the Border:

    EPIC has sent a statement to the House Homeland Security Committee in advance of a hearing on “Technology’s Role on Securing the Border.” EPIC alerted the Committee to EPIC’s recent FOIA lawsuit about the federal government’s deployment of a biometric “entry/exit tracking system,” including at US airports.

    Click to access 1-Complaint.pdf

    Reply

  14. US Customs Agents are taking mug shots of US citizens who leave the country:

    US Customs and Border Protection has expanded its photography of the faces of all non-US citizens entering or leaving the US (under the “US-VISIT” program) to add mug shots of US citizens leaving the country.

    US citizens have the legal right not to submit to this mass surveillance and travel control scheme. But as with your right to fly without ID, CBP notices at airports won’t tell you that. You need to know your rights and be prepared to assert them.
    https://papersplease.org/wp/2017/07/16/cbp-is-taking-mug-shots-of-us-citizens-who-leave-the-country/

    Reply

  15. There Is Simply No Scientific Backing For TSA’s Behavioral Detection Program:

    The Government Accountability Office Report focuses on the TSA’s stubborn insistence that the Behavior Detection program is worth what we’re paying for it. It has made claims to oversight that this program is scientifically-backed and scientifically-based. The GAO’s investigation finds almost nothing that backs these assertions.

    We reviewed and categorized all 178 sources that, as of April 2017, TSA cited as providing support for specific indicators in its revised list of behavioral indicators to identify the extent to which they present valid evidence.

    Of the 178 total sources TSA cited, we determined that 137 are news or opinion sources, and we took no further action because these do not meet our definition of valid evidence.
    READ MORE:
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170722/13382537845/there-is-simply-no-scientific-backing-tsas-behavioral-detection-program.shtml

    Reply

  25. The paranoid Windows traveler’s data-protection checklist:

    It used to be that the most intrusive experience business travelers faced at airport security was a possible pat-down, or a customs check of luggage. These days, border control agents are searching passengers’ phones, tablets and laptops for … well, anything they want to see. Your complying with the request grants them access to documents, emails, passwords, contacts and social media account information. So travelers carrying confidential or privileged corporate information (in addition to the merely personal) need to take steps ahead of time to ensure that private data stays private.
    http://www.computerworld.com/article/3218165/microsoft-windows/the-paranoid-windows-travelers-data-protection-checklist.html

    Reply

  31. Pittsburgh airport will allow non passengers to get past security without a plane ticket:

    Starting Tuesday, 5 September, Pittsburgh International Airport has become the first U.S. airport to allow non-fliers regular access into its gate-side terminal areas since security measures changed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The airport has won approval from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for non-ticketed customers to pass through security, though they will still have to go through the same screening as those catching flights.
    http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/08/30/pittsburgh-airport-will-allow-non-flyers-past-security-for-first-time-since-911.html

    Reply

Leave a reply to massprivatei Cancel reply

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑