SCOTUS previously got rid of the IRAP case out of the Fourth Circuit. That case only involved the travel ban, which expired after 90 days.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The Hawaii case, out of the Ninth Circuit, also involved the refugee ban, which expired after 120 days. As such, it had to wait until now.
Show this thread -
In both instances, Justice Sotomayor would have dismissed the cases as improvidently granted, leaving the lower court rulings in place.
Show this thread -
This action today (or the previous action) is about the March 6 travel ban, not the president's September 24 travel proclamation.
Show this thread -
There are multiple challenges to the proclamation (i.e., travel ban 3.0), and orders halting enforcement out of Maryland & Hawaii fed cts.
Show this thread -
tl;dr: SCOTUS isn't hearing the cases over Trump's March travel ban. But we already knew that. This is, basically, clean up.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Speak English
-
In fairness, Chris' articles are excellent and well-explained (and he seems like a great person). But I often don't understand his tweets.
-
The tweets on breaking news are often for the many lawyers who follow me. (I ended with a "plain English" tweet.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.