TRAVEL BAN LIKELY TO SURVIVE | Conservatives Take Control | Trump’s Trade War Arrives At 1 First
April 25, 2018
BACKING THE BAN
|This morning during arguments over DONALD TRUMP’S travel ban, a slim margin of justices seemed ready to throw support behind the immigration policy. Often the deciding jurist, JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY, suggested more than once that it’s not the Supreme Court’s place to question a president’s national security decisions. The president’s primary defense of the travel ban 3.0 is that it is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants. The current travel ban prohibits entry of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. And while arguments went on inside the Marble Palace, just outside were about 150 people demonstrating against the ban.
SPOTTED
|In Richard Wolf’s report on today’s travel ban arguments, he notes that there were a few standout guests in the courtroom audience. White House counsel DON MCGAHN was present and seated next to former Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall’s widow, Cecilia. Also present was LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA, creator and star of the Broadway hit Hamilton.
CONTROLLA
|“The U.S. Supreme Court offered new evidence on Tuesday that conservatives have exerted control and liberals are not going quietly, in a pair of 5-4 decisions that could explain the remarkably slow pace of decisions this session.” That’s Joan Biskupic with CNN taking note of the high court’s rightward shift that has come into stark view this week. Although it’s hard to say for sure, it seems part of the reason the justices have been slow to bring forth their decisions this term has to do with a deep ideological divide that pits the dueling camps in “especially protracted rounds of back-and-forth.”
TRUMP V. CHINA
|Tuesday, the Trump administration and China clashed at the Supreme Court over a price-fixing case leveled against Chinese vitamin makers. The Trump administration is partially backing U.S. vitamin purchasers in their bid to revive a $148 million award they won in an antitrust lawsuit. After an hour of arguments, the justices didn’t seem inclined to give Chinese officials the final say. They are expected to hand down their decision in the case before the term ends in June
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times thinks SCOTUS got it wrong this week when it made it harder for victims of human rights violations to seek justice in American courts. The Ed Board notes, “American courts can’t provide a remedy for every atrocity or act of oppression, but they ought to be open to victims — including foreigners — who can’t obtain justice elsewhere. Tuesday’s decision made such relief even harder to achieve.”
AND WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE
|Robert Barnes with The Washington Post reports on the justices’ reactions to this week’s gerrymandering case in which minorities and voting rights groups have asked them to overturn Texas’s redistricting plans they say intentionally discriminate against black and Latino voters. Barnes writes that even after nearly 80 minutes of arguments, the justices didn’t seem close to resolution on the issue. “The liberal justices seemed to favor the challengers, while the conservatives seemed to think that Texas — now supported by the Trump administration — has done what it should. And JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, who probably holds the deciding vote, didn’t say much at all. There is a real chance that the court could decide that, even after all this time, the case is not yet ready for the Supreme Court to weigh in.”
TODAY IN HISTORY
|On this day in 1906, future JUSTICE WILLIAM BRENNAN was born. The staff of Constitution Daily remembers the justice’s work at the Supreme Court, his famous opinions, and the legacy he left behind.
OTHER NEWS
Thanks For Nothing, Supreme Court. You Left Patents A Mess.
Bloomberg“In its ruling, the Supreme Court essentially said that Congress has the constitutional right to pass laws overseeing the patent process, even if it means reopening a patent that was already approved. But the real question, which was far outside the scope of the case, is this: Why in the world do we need a new group of experts to re-examine the work of the patent office’s 8,147 examiners? Why aren’t the patent examiners getting it right in the first place?”
Supreme Court Continues To Narrow The Meaning Of Obstruction
The New York Times“Before one jumps to any conclusions, it’s worth examining the Supreme Court’s decision in a tax case last month. The ruling continues a trend of narrowing the laws used to prosecute an obstruction case. The court’s message has been that more is needed to prove obstruction than just conduct that might have some tangential impact on how prosecutors put together a case.”