MORE LAWSUITS EXPECTED OVER TRAVEL BAN | Hawaii Files First Suit | Redskins Win Their 25 Year Battle
June 30, 2017
ON, THEN OFF. BACK, BUT DIFFERENT
|The Associated Press reports on DONALD TRUMP’S “TRAVEL BAN” that got a facelift after first failing in the courts. Now, somewhat revised thanks to SCOTUS, the ban is in effect. So what’s new this time? AP draws a comparison for us between the old and new versions.
JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS OVER
|The travel ban went into effect Thursday night, and the legal challenges against it have already begun. Overall, the response to its implementation have been muted — some protesters and volunteers arrived in terminals of major airports to demonstrate their dissent, but it was nothing like what we saw in January. Even so, Hawaii’s attorney general filed a lawsuit late last night to force the Trump administration to clarify how it created its list of people who will or won’t be banned under the order.
TOP-ED
|In The Hill, Jonathan Nash considers how the lower courts and the Supreme Court came to such different conclusions on the president’s travel ban. First, he says, “The lower courts gave insufficient weight to the executive branch’s interest in, and discretion in determining the means to obtain, national security.” And second, “The lower courts deferred too much to the plaintiffs’ assertions that the temporary travel ban imposes cognizable legal injuries on foreign nationals with no connection whatsoever to American citizens or institutions.”
MORE TO COME
|The fight over DONALD TRUMP’S travel ban is far from over. The Associated Press reports, “Immigration and refugee advocates are vowing to challenge the new requirements and the administration has struggled to explain how the rules will make the United States safer…The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups challenging the ban, called the new criteria ‘extremely restrictive,’ ”arbitrary’ in their exclusions and designed to ‘disparage and condemn Muslims.'”
IT'S OVER, IT'S OVER
|“The fight began nearly 25 years ago, an epic legal tussle over a single word: Redskins.” Ian Shapira and Ann E. Marimow with The Washington Post write that yesterday the fight over the NFL team name came to a close. “On Thursday, the five Native Americans fighting the NFL team over its trademark registrations called it quits in federal appeals court. So did the Justice Department, which on Wednesday declared the team the winner.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Trump Administration Tries to Circumvent Supreme Court Travel Ban Ruling
The Washington Post“Yesterday, the Trump administration issued guidelines implementing those parts of the travel ban that it now views as permissible. Key parts of those guidelines are so indefensible that they can only be regarded as attempts to circumvent the Court’s decision.”
Will Chief Justice Roberts Save Same-Sex Marriage?
CNN“Despite three dissents, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority decision, indicating that he may be a swing vote in protecting same-sex marriage in the not too distant future.”
OTHER NEWS
Chief Justice Roberts Quoted This Little-Known 19th-Century Lawmaker in Siding with Religious Institutions in Church-State Decision
The Washington Post“When Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered the Supreme Court’s ruling this week in an important separation of church and state case, he closed with an excerpt from an 1819 speech by a little-known state lawmaker, who spoke passionately against the exclusion of Jews from public office in the early 19th-century.”
K-12 and the U.S. Supreme Court: Highlights of the 2016-17 Term
Education Week“The U.S. Supreme Court had one of its most significant terms for K-12 education in several years, even after it decided to remand to a lower court a case it had decided to hear about transgender rights in education, Gloucester County School District v. G.G. Here are the cases with implications for education that the court did decide.”
With 3 Moves, Supreme Court GIves New Hope to Advocates of Public Funding of Religious Schools
The Washington Post“The court did not make any determinative ruling on whether it would embrace the notion of public funding for religious education — which is now banned by the constitutions of a majority of the states — but it made clear it is not opposed to the use of some public money going to religious institutions for certain reasons, and it suggested that going further is not out of the realm of possibility.”