// 6/25/17 //
The government argued that the Supreme Court should not second-guess the President’s national-security judgments, in its brief filed today.
The government also asked that the Court narrow one of the injunctions against enforcing the ban so it applies only to a few people. (SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston’s blog).
- The brief responds to the challengers’ recent argument that the Supreme Court should allow the injunctions against the ban to stand because the President has undercut his national-security rationale for the travel ban by initiating review of visa-issuance vetting procedures, which ostensibly necessitated the ban.
- Trump’s say-so is not a national security judgment, counters Marty Lederman at Just Security.
At Take Care, Corey Brettschneider comments on President Trump’s petition for the Supreme Court to lift the orders preventing implementation of the travel ban.
- Courts’ lack of deference to President Trump’s immigration-related executive orders is not unprecedented, argues Deborah Perlstein (Balkinization).
- Take Care provides a guide to its analyses of the travel ban.
In a recent Supreme Court filing, Hawaii argues that the Trump Administration’s request for time to review visa-issuances processes are undercut by the major delays incurred litigating the revised entry ban.(Law News)