In IRAP v. Trump, the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the travel ban for “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Court stopped short of defining which types of family relationships are, and are not, bona fide. Instead it gave examples of what would qualify: “A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr.
Latest in Travel Ban
Many are debating the significance of today’s Per Curiam Supreme Court opinion that granted the government’s petitions for certiorari and its stay applications in part. Did the Court signal that it would uphold most elements of the decisions below, as some argued? Did it signal the opposite—that it would reverse most elements of the appellate court rulings? Will the case be moot by the fall?
A brief reaction to the travel-ban litigation, and to the end of the Supreme Court’s Term generally: Article II conservatism is alive and well. Let me explain.
Today the Supreme Court announced in a per curiam decision that it will hear the travel ban cases in October. But its decision granting certiorari and staying the injunctions in part is clearly by itself a major ruling. Here are the key points and some nuances for the perplexed.
Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed in part a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's revised travel ban issued by a federal district court in Hawaii v. Trump. The decision comes on the heels of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in IRAP v.
Early this morning, apparently in response to a segment on Morning Joe, President Trump unleashed a Twitter storm about the travel ban cases, one of which has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
Analysis of IRAP v. Trump Part V: Judge Shedd and Judge Agee’s Dissents, and the Government’s Petitions for Certiorari and Applications for Stay
This is the final part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed how the court considered pre- and post-inauguration statements. Part II analyzed how the court marshals the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning standing, reviewability of immigration decisions, and the Establishment Clause. In Part III, I analyzed the concurring opinions of Judges Keenan, Thacker, and Wynn.
Join me as I liveblog today's oral argument in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, which the Fourth Circuit is hearing en banc at 2:30 pm—you can follow along under the C-SPAN livestream embedded below.