Darrell reviews the Supreme Court’s decision reinstating President Trump’s travel ban on people from Muslim countries. Transcript TRAVEL BAN REINSTATED—WELL SORT OF Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s pod cast. Today is Friday June 30, 2017 and on today’s pod cast we will be talking about this week’s Supreme Court’s per Curiam, which means unsigned, decision in what is commonly known as the travel ban case. The Court unanimously stayed or scaled back most of the relief granted by the lower courts in this case. The case involves an executive order from President Trump to ban new travel visas for travel to the United States for people from six countries—Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Court halted the stay imposed on the President’s order temporally and agreed to hear the full case in the October 2017 session of the Court. The Justices stated that the President has a high interest in enforcing issues of national security. “The Government’s interest in enforcing, and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.” The lower courts seemed to find some kind of U.S. Constitutional right that supposedly exists in foreign nationals but the Supreme Court basically said that such a right can be stayed by executive order when the foreign national has no legitimate tie to the United States. The first circuit to hear this case was the 9th Circuit from an appeal of a Federal District judge in Hawaii. That Judge, who was appointed to the position by former President Obama issued an order in effect countermanding the President’s executive order and the 9th Circuit upheld the Judge’s decision. The 9th is the most overturned circuit in the country. It is based in San Francisco but also sits in other western cities. This case was an easy one for the Supreme Court as the 9th circuit denied the President’s right and duty to protect the interests of the United States and its people and it tried to find or establish rights in foreign nationals where none existed. Let’s look for a minute at what this decision really means and what its limitations are. President Trump called the ruling “a clear victory for our national security”. “As President I cannot allow people into the country who want to do us harm.” The decision was a unanimous 9-0 but there are various opinions as to its effect. The American Civil Liberties Union suggested that the decision would allow for “only the narrowest implementation of the travel ban that would “tear families apart”. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have let the ban take effect without restriction just as the President signed it. Justice Thomas said the government made a strong showing of a likelihood of success when the full case is heard in October. The court permitted the administration to impose a 90 day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen and a 120 day ban on all refugees entering the United States with the following exception:  the ban 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. The exception is very important. The purpose of the ban is to keep out people who hate the United States and its people and who want to do them harm. It might not be all that difficult for those desiring to enter the United States to assert a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”  Plenty of wannabe terrorists probably have business interests or family members already here. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented from the portion of the order imposing the restriction. They said the restriction would burden officials with deciding “on peril of contempt” whither those desiring to enter had a credible claim.  So that is the threat then. Officials would be held in contempt for violating the restriction, I suppose,