SCOTUS Requests Trump VISA Restriction Challengers File Legal Responses by Monday June 12th….

President Trump has requested the Supreme Court grant an expedited review of lower court rulings that have blocked the temporary travel restrictions and visa bans.

The Supreme Court justices have now asked challengers to the Trump Executive Order to file their responses to the petition for review (the requests for stays of the lower courts’ rulings).  Those responses are due on or before 3 p.m. Monday, June 12.

(Via SCOTUS BLOG) […] Arguing that lower courts “openly second-guessed” President Donald Trump’s determination that national security concerns require a freeze on new visas for travelers from six Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen), last night the federal government asked the Supreme Court to step into the legal dispute over the constitutionality of the executive order that the president signed on March 6.

The government also asked the court to put on hold two lower-court rulings blocking the implementation of the executive order, telling the justices that those rulings undermine “the President’s constitutional and statutory power to protect” the United States.  (read more)


This entry was posted in Dept Of Justice, DHS, ISIS, Islam, Jihad, media bias, President Trump, Terrorist Attacks, Transportation, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

159 Responses to SCOTUS Requests Trump VISA Restriction Challengers File Legal Responses by Monday June 12th….

  1. Meanwhile liberals are marching around chanting the same ol crapolla. Oy, git a grip!

    Liked by 12 people

  2. M33 says:

    Ahh… and Rule of Law finally begins to reassert itself.


    Liked by 24 people

  3. MakeAmericaGreat says:

    It is on. And Gorsuch is in place.

    Liked by 48 people

    • enfield66 says:

      I am nervously anticipating the outcome even with Gorsuch. If SCOTUS rejects the Fed case, the powers of POTUS will be changed forever and every lefty Circuit Court judge can become a de facto legislator because they will have gained legislative power.

      Liked by 9 people

      • Bazza McKenzie says:

        I suspect some or even all the leftists on the SCOTUS will reject the lower court rulings. They’ll probably try to abuse President Trump in the process but they know if the lower court rulings stand, that every president in future, whatever their political leanings will have someone finding a court to block every exec order made. That would become an even bigger constraint on Dem presidents than Republican ones.

        Liked by 3 people

        • tellthetruth2016 says:

          Lets just hope Roberts doesn’t try to rewrite what the judges “meant” to say like he did with ObozoCare …….

          Liked by 8 people

        • oldguy says:

          I think you are right. I bet the supremes may well fear the federal court system will lose credibility and simply be ignored. I saw this worry take place in the first ruling in Gore vs Bush which resulted in a 7/3 decision, the 2nd 5/4.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Mike says:

        Atlas Shrugs when the Supreme Court refuses to uphold the Constitution, especially on existential issues.

        Liked by 2 people

    • setup2100 says:

      GORSUCH in place but a replacement. Watch Roberts vote with the LIBS again and STOP Trump travel ban. Need one more TRUMP appointment to turn that court around.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. auscitizenmom says:

    Hm. It appears that the court has a sense of urgency.

    Liked by 23 people

  5. md070264 says:

    They are fully aware that hell will break loose against the judicial branch if an attack occurs that could have been stopped by the executive branch and this executive order.

    Liked by 37 people

  6. Lisa Harpenau says:


    Sent by my iPhone



  7. theresanne says:

    Ginsberg should recuse herself because of her previous statements on President Trump.

    “He is a faker,” she said. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.” (

    She expressed her views, she must recuse!

    Liked by 46 people

  8. rumpole2 says:

    It seems to me that when there are these (clearly) political decisions, not based on LAW at all… passed up the Judicial chain, then there should be consideration given to SANCTIONING the lower level court shown to be misusing their power.
    In this case the SCOTUS should censure the 9th Circuit. 4th Circuit… fire the dopes ideally.

    Liked by 41 people

  9. rumpole2 says:


    Liked by 23 people

  10. fleporeblog says:

    This one sentence from the link above says it all folks:

    Moreover, it added, the challengers conceded in the lower courts that the provision of the executive order putting a temporary hold on visas for travelers from the six countries listed in the order “could be constitutional if issued by some other President.”

    How in God’s name can even one of the liberal Justices in the SC vote in favor of the lower courts. If one does, they should be taken out back and shot! The next day a replacement should be sworn in. The lower courts really tried to stick it to our Lion with that sentence. Little did they realize it KILLED their decision when the SC throws this whole thing out!

    Liked by 17 people

    • M33 says:

      They will try to justify it with using his early campaign comments of a temporary muslim ban…
      which is silly, because UScode still allow any president to restrict ANY class of people from entering our country at ANY time if they are not a citizen.

      I loathe progressivism, liberalism, and “living document” thinking more and more every day…

      Liked by 14 people

      • catluver99 says:

        I agree about the campaign comments BUT it was also the big O who deemed these 6 or 7 countries as terrorist countries. So why wouldn’t it be right for President Trump to TEMPORARILY halt travel from these SAME countries? If President Trump wanted to ban ALL Muslims, he would have banned 50 or so countries that are Muslim.

        If these moron judges would have not intervened, the temp ban would already be over by now, the vetting set up properly. It’s already been 3 months but noooooo. All to make our president look ridiculous. I hate these people.

        Liked by 10 people

      • Maquis says:

        “Living Document” = “Dying Freedom”

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ron says:

      I’m not super well versed in the doings of the court, but I”ll just say after they passed Obamacare I don’t trust Roberts to do the right thing at any damn time. We are under attack, this is war, and you cannot count on the Supreme Court to do the right thing.

      I can see 1 or 2 of the liberal justices upholding the ban but how in the world any of the others goes against them makes me lose faith for humanity.

      Liked by 7 people

  11. Southern Son says:

    Get ‘Em!, Bulldog!!
    I feel Another Win comin’!
    I. Love. WINNING!!
    Thank You President Trump, and All the American Patriots, Defending Our Nation, and the U.S. Constitution!

    Press ON!

    Liked by 8 people

  12. saywhat64 says:

    The Big Stage is set to welcome Lady Justice back from Sabbatical.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Lburg says:

      Lady Justice enters, stage left.

      “Welcome to you all. Please turn off your phones, enjoy your popcorn and the next eight years of “Make America Lawful Again” starring Donald Trump and his band of Wolverines. It’s going to be a hoot!

      If you happen to see wandering Hillary, hit the reset button located on the right side of your chair and we will have her removed as quickly as possible. Feel free to applaud whenever you like however we do discourage REEEEs except during intermission. Thank you!”

      Liked by 5 people

  13. Chuck Finley says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but this still only puts us on a September timeframe for SCOTUS to even hear the case.


  14. fedback says:

    Manchester attack would have been prevented with Trump’s travel ban

    Liked by 3 people

    • Tony Stark says:

      How so? Manchester is in the UK, not the USA.


      • fedback says:

        The attacker travelled between Libya and UK. UK could have prevented the attack with a travel ban.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Deplorable Canuck says:

          Not convinced about that. The Manchester attacker was British…i.e. born in the UK. His family was travelling too-from Libya, but given he lived in the UK I don’t see how a similar ban would have stopped him. He would simply have chosen to stay in the UK if a ban had been implemented.


        • The Boss says:

          You have details that MSM isn’t broadcasting. They’re still stuck on using the word “emergency”.

          Liked by 1 person

    • And the Manchester Attack just proves PDJT POINT…the SC cannot overlook this one fact. The lower court as someone pointed out above will be overruled BECAUSE IT WAS NOT BASED UPON THE RULE OF LAW…but ON WHAT WAS SAID IN A POLITICAL RALLYE…NOT grounds to have a ruling such as this…PDJT and US DEPLORABLES WIN…

      Liked by 3 people

      • M. Mueller says:

        “but on what was said in a political rallye”
        Then, maybe the Supreme Court could force all politicians to do what they say during a campaign. For instance: repeal Obama Care, balance the budget, stop crime, etc. etc.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. thluckyone says:

    Father God, please let MILLIONS of supporters of the US Constitution live AT LEAST long enough to see the 9th circuit court “judges” embarrassed, split up and dismissed into poverty and homelessness. Lord, anything after that – under your Divine Sovereignty – we’ll give thanks for as pure gravy. Actually, Lord, we just pray that Justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Let it begin in our hearts. Thank you, Precious Sovereign God! AMEN!

    Liked by 21 people

  16. Quick question since I’m ignorant of law proceedings
    What would happen if the challengers FAIL to file before the deadline? Would President Trump’s EO then kick into action and be considered law?
    thanks for any response.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. 2x4x8 says:

    Ruth, the Truth is awaiting you in the Charnel House


  18. janc1955 says:

    The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (WTH?) is just a brief 356 pages long. Damn shame someone had to crank that thing out because a couple of activist judges think they rule the world. spit

    Liked by 5 people

  19. India Maria says:

    I suspect the “Sessions Sucks” crowd will have egg on their face when the final curtain falls on Trump’s first four years. Sessions was a tiger of a U.S. Attorney for many years, and then the ONLY Congressional figure to actually fight against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and FOR AMERICAN Sovereignty in Trade deals. Silly to clamor for IMMEDIATE Jail time for some of the most powerful folks in the world. This stuff takes time. Remember, WE GOT CLINTON IMPEACHED, and that ended his Presidency and landed him in jail……oh wait………

    Liked by 3 people

  20. kathycovfefe says:

    In case anyone wants to bookmark it for a direct link to documents filed in the case and the docket, here are all the Trump cases pending before the SCOTUS right now.

    Liked by 8 people

  21. Michael says:

    Obama Takes Aim at Supreme Court, Calls Them ‘Unelected Group of People’

    “There is not only an economic element to this, a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

    Human element as in Americans being killed by foreign/religious nut cases?

    Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.

    the law that says the president has authority over immigration?

    And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

    as in activist judges deciding the law is not the law because they don’t like the campaign rhetoric of the guy implementing it?

    Liked by 8 people

  22. joshua says:

    In light of the London terrorist attacks that are happening right now….I absolutely DEFY the SC to fail to protect American Citizens by negating the constitution and the executive order that limits the entry of selected folks from COMING INTO OUR COUNTRY LEGALLY for RIGHT NOW.

    Let’s see if the SC actually is AMERICAN, or is just a bunch of stupid lawyers wearing long black robes.

    Liked by 8 people

  23. amwick says:

    Bit of a discussion over at LI concerning Justice Ginsburg. Seems she really should recuse herself, but probably won’t. personally I wonder how she stays awake.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Every legal spokesperson knowledgeable about this say that Trump will win this. Some of them also think that SCOTUS may also lift the Stay this month(June) after they hear from the lower courts on June 12. Then, they said SCOTUS will hear the full case in the fall and make a final decision. They say that the vote in June will be an indication of how it will go in the fall.

    Liked by 5 people

  25. Maquis says:

    Thank Goodness, expedite this puppy.

    Let’s let Griffin host the “people” sneaking in during this fiasco.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. John Waszkiewicz says:

    How willing is the Supreme Court to take responsibility for possible future terrorist attacks in this country?


  27. tsmifjones says:

    The law is clear here. It’s just more fake assumptions by the leftwingbats. I will enjoy watching them lose again.


  28. Publius2016 says:

    The Supreme Court must decide this 9-0 as the power to administer State falls to the executive. Departments of State, War, Treasury and Justice are the foundation of a Executive action. The usurpation of this power by the lower courts through stays is treason and sedition. According to a simple reading of these failed courts’ opinions, the 9th and 4th basically accept the argument that all humans regardless of birth are entitled to the rights and benefits of the United States; it is the Paris Accords of immigration!

    Liked by 2 people

  29. Moreover, it added, the challengers conceded in the lower courts that the provision of the executive order putting a temporary hold on visas for travelers from the six countries listed in the order “could be constitutional if issued by some other President.”

    Judges don’t get to decide how the law works based on who they like. There’s a reason Lady Liberty wears a blindfold. I would be very disappointed if any of the SC judges think that the lower court ruling should stand. Any of them. The President is the final authority regarding controlling the border. Period.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Pf Mahan says:

    Are we 100% sure Gorsuch will not back stab us as well as Roberts, I remember reading back before he was swore in that he did not Agree with some Of the Presidents immigration policy


    • Jim Smith says:

      Hopefully Gorsuch will rule on the law and the Constitution, not whether he personally thinks the policy is wise. That was the whole point in his nomination. I believe that he is a strict constitutionalist.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. john lorenz says:

    If the President’s public statements as a candidate can be used to negate legal authority, shouldn’t the anti-Trump remarks made publicly by Ginsberg, using same reasoning, cause her to recuse herself???


  32. ofaycat says:

    Anything that keeps the Muslim rabble out of our country is a very good thing.


  33. oldarmyblog says:

    Bottom line is that if the Court upholds the lower court ruling, the President should order the ban to be implemented any way. To paraphrase Andrew Jackson, “They have made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it”. The next thing he should do is disestablish the 9th and 4th Circuit Courts (also something Jackson did). In the face of all the Islamic attacks against western civilization, the temporary travel bans are necessary and prudent, not to mention well within the authority of the President.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s