October 25, 2017

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Refugee Ban

Rebel Staff

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court officially dismissed the second and last challenge to President Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees in what is a major victory for the White House. Here's what the Supreme Court said in it's dismissal of the challenge:

We granted certiorari in this case to resolve a challenge to

the temporary suspension of entry of aliens and refugees under Section 2(c) and Section 6 of Executive Order No. 13,780. Because those provisions of the Order have “expired by [their] own terms,” the appeal no longer presents a “live case or controversy.” Burke v. Barnes, 479 U. S. 361, 363 (1987). Following our established practice in such cases, the judgment is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss as moot the challenge to Executive Order No. 13,780. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
340 U. S. 36, 39 (1950). We express no view on the merit. Justice Sotomayor dissents from the order vacating the judgment below and would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

The mainstream media made a whole big show over how unconstitutional Trump's travel ban was, but this makes it clear that it actually did not violate American laws. Furthermore, the ban was not the racist action that the leftwing portrayed it as, but rather was a clear attempt to protect the American people.

All one has to do is look at the situation in Europe to understand why it's so important to regulate the refugee admissions process. European nations were quick to open their borders to allow refugees in from numerous nations, and have suffered a myriad consequences. With his ban, President Trump was trying to ensure that the U.S. would not descend into this same chaos. 

Despite what the mainstream media says, most Americans agree that we need proper security measures to prevent what's happening in Europe from happening here. The only thing that the loud leftists who cry racism whenever Trump takes action are accomplishing are making our country more vulnerable to attacks. 

What do you think about this? Sound off in the comments section below!

What You Can Do
  1. Subscribe to Premium content!
  2. Donate today to help keep The Rebel fighting!
  3. Visit The Rebel Store to get cool swag you won't find anywhere else.
  4. JOIN TheRebel.media FREE for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.
  5. Like TheRebel on Facebook
  6. Follow TheRebel on Twitter
Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-10-26 12:03:40 -0400
“Drew Wakariuk commented 11 hours ago
Andrew then why did they bother ruling on it? Where do you dig up this garbage? "

They didn’t rule on it. It was tossed as no longer relevant due to being expired. It literally says that right in the judgement quoted above. Same reason we don’t hold trials if the suspect’s dead. What’s the point?
commented 2017-10-26 01:31:45 -0400
I wish i could be like Andrew and cherry pick what part of an issue or a ruling matters. I guess Andrew has never heard of the word PRECEDENCE.
Andrew if it had been unlawful or unconstitutional they would have ruled as such.
Sorry was supposed to be didn’t in my previous comment.
commented 2017-10-26 01:26:46 -0400
Andrew then why did they bother ruling on it? Where do you dig up this garbage?
commented 2017-10-25 22:00:01 -0400
The challenge was tossed because the ban’s already expired. That’s literally what " Because those provisions of the Order have “expired by [their] own terms,” the appeal no longer presents a “live case or controversy." means.

No comment or determination has been made as to its constitutionality. There’s simply no point to proceeding with something that no longer exists.

#fakenews.
commented 2017-10-25 20:32:08 -0400
Since 9/11 – IN THE NAME OF ISLAM (SATAN): 34,253 Attacks, 221,172 Killed, 302,175 Injured that we know of
commented 2017-10-25 18:03:03 -0400
The MSM thinks whatever they decide should be the law , the actual law does not apply in their feeble minds.
commented 2017-10-25 15:44:45 -0400
This judgment doesn’t mean what you think it does. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the federal government’s appeal of the injunction against the travel ban granted by the Ninth Circuit. They also lifted the injunction pending a hearing of the appeal. Lifting the injunction on an interim basis allowed the travel ban to run its course. The travel ban only lasted 3 months, so it expired on its own terms before the Supreme Court could hear and decide the case on its merits. The appeal to the Supreme Court therefore became moot, and the Supreme Court does not hear moot cases. All that remained was a bit of legalistic house-cleaning: the Supreme Court’s certiorari judgment was vacated (meaning that the Ninth Circuit Appeal Court was off the hook having to provide a record of their judgment for the appeal), and the Ninth Circuit was ordered to dismiss the challenge as moot also. The key point is that nobody won anything on its merits. (Sotomayer, in a lone dissent, would have not allowed the appeal to the Supreme Court, thus leaving the Appeal Court’s injunction intact.) I believe that is how this legalese is to be understood, more or less.
commented 2017-10-25 15:08:58 -0400
… No one should ever have been allowed to just sail or walk across a nation’s border and be considered for acceptance as a citizen. Not one. The encouragement of irresponsible fools like Justin Trudeau and Pope Francis have created this unfolding and inevitable disaster.
… The Mediterranean routes should have been shut down years ago. Build walls like the remaining sensible European countries, and defend borders. Use our military to guard our borders, and deport everyone who is an illegal alien.