Supreme Court tosses out a challenge to Trump's travel ban

Supreme Court dismisses case against Trump's expired travel ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an appeals court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump's previous temporary travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations countries that has now expired.

The Supreme Court first considered the Muslim ban in June, when it confronted two cases where lower courts halted parts of the ban - International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump and Trump v. Hawaii. That 120-day period expires later this month, suggesting that at least, for now, it remains a live controversy.

The high court dismissed (PDF) a challenge by the International Refugee Assistance Project that dealt only with the ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries, which was replaced on September 24 when it expired, report SCOTUSblog, the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today.

Supreme Court dismisses a pending challenge...

Jadwat argued the new executive order does not change the "religious condemnation" present in the earlier version, "which - despite some new window dressing - continues to relay a message of disparagement to the plaintiffs and other members of their faith".

There were no noted dissenters from the court's decision not to hear arguments about the travel ban, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have left the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit's ruling in place.

That action made the court challenge moot, the justices ruled. Though the Court does not explain why it treats these two cases differently, it likely stems from one crucial difference between them. It also added three more countries: North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad.

Trump furnished a novel command about immigrants last month, and the management had conveyed the court that meant there was no basis for the justices to pass judgment on the old one.

In some ways it is more expansive than the second executive order it replaced - remaining in effect indefinitely and imposing restrictions on eight, rather than six, countries. Attorneys in both Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. IRAP have sought to amend their original complaints (here and here) to challenge the new proclamation, while another group - the Council on American-Islamic Relations - has filed its own challenge.

Related News: