On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court modified the injunctions imposed by federal trial judges in Hawaii and Maryland against the President’s national security Executive Order. The Supreme Court’s ruling (which agreed with many of the arguments made in our amicus brief) was a stern rebuke to a number of federal district and appellate courts that ignored the law and the Constitution which grant the President extensive powers over national security and immigration.
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, refugees and foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (countries where demonstrated terrorism concerns exist) who lack a close relationship with a person or entity in this country will not gain entry during the temporary period in which the government considers improvements to the immigration and refugee screening processes.
In an attempt to broaden the category of people who can enter this country, the State of Hawaii filed an emergency motion with the same trial judge who had imposed one of the injunctions. The State asked that judge to clarify the Supreme Court’s ruling before the Executive Order went into effect.
In a swift rejection of Hawaii’s attempt to bypass the Supreme Court (the proper place to seek clarification of that Court’s ruling), the trial judge yesterday refused to “usurp the prerogative of the Supreme Court to interpret its own order” and directed the State to seek relief in the Supreme Court.
Rather than follow the trial judge’s guidance, at least as of this writing, the State of Hawaii did not seek clarification from the Supreme Court (where it initially lost in its efforts to keep the injunction as broad as possible) but instead filed an emergency appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously sided with the State in its attack on the Executive Order.
As one would expect, the mainstream media is downplaying the significance of the Hawaii judge’s denial of the State’s efforts to bypass the Supreme Court and his decision to leave untouched the modified injunction.
The mainstream media has failed to acknowledge that the judge’s order is not just a win for our national security, but it also highlights the judge’s understanding that the Supreme Court is now the place for these important issues to be resolved.
In the coming weeks, the ACLJ plans to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting the National Security Executive Order. Join our brief by signing our petition below.
As we aggressively fight to protect our national security and Christians, we urgently need your support. Defend America & Christians today.
The historic five-hour meeting between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un ended with a signed agreement between the two leaders. It is not a treaty, as it does not contain any details as to implementation or a way forward in order to bring about the general goals in the signed agreement.
As the planned summit between the United States and North Korea was on, then off, and now on again, President Trump acknowledged that the phased dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program was a possibility. Many in the media latched onto this as a reversal of the President’s pledge that...
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments concerning the legality of President Trump’s National Security Proclamation . The Proclamation, issued in September, fulfilled the promise of President Trump’s March 6, 2017 National Security Executive Order. The March 6th...
It was revealed this week that CIA Director (and Secretary of State nominee) Mike Pompeo traveled Easter Weekend for personal talks with Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. It was a surprising development, which comes as the United States and North Korea lay the groundwork for direct talks...