# Travel ban: Oh for two **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 16, 2017, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281 "2017-03-16T02:26:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/181 "2017-06-26T16:22:20Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The case may be moot by October because the clock is now ticking as to parts of the ban (people w/o connections) and SCOTUS expressly said it expected that Trump Admin would perform the vetting review that is the whole reason the ban exists. This is underscored by SCOTUS having added that particular question–is the ban moot–to the questions it certified, suggesting they think it may well be moot come October. Mine is a hedging agreement – I’d say it depends on what the results of the vetting review are. If the review indicates, for example, that extensive additional screening and processing procedures are put in place for these six countries, I wonder if “capable of repetition yet evading review” might be uttered here. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/182 "2017-06-26T16:22:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Kennedy and Roberts upholding the most defensible part of the injunctions strongly signals they would likely find against the ban on the merits as to those people. Conservatives had argued that no one had standing, and Roberts is usually pretty sympathetic to that line (to say nothing of them not buying into the national security pretext that Gorsuch and others apparently bought). As a practical matter, the majority of the people affected by the ban will be able to show a bona fide connection, especially since the gray areas will get determined by sympathetic lower courts while SCOTUS is out of the office for the summer. > > The case may be moot by October because the clock is now ticking as to parts of the ban (people w/o connections) and SCOTUS expressly said it expected that Trump Admin would perform the vetting review that is the whole reason the ban exists. This is underscored by SCOTUS having added that particular question–is the ban moot–to the questions it certified, suggesting they think it may well be moot come October. You may be right, but one thing I have learned is never to take decision on interim orders as being indicative of how a Court might rule. There are several considerations in stays which don’t exist at merits stage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/183 "2017-06-26T16:23:22Z")
And does it both you in the slightest that there is a disconnect between “friendly lower courts” and the Supreme Court? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/184 "2017-06-26T16:50:12Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > You may be right, but one thing I have learned is never to take decision on interim orders as being indicative of how a Court might rule. There are several considerations in stays which don’t exist at merits stage. This is true, of course. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has, historically, not played its cards close to the vest on stays concerning important national issues. It’s a pretty safe bet that refusing to stay the injunction means they’ll uphold it, though not a sure thing. > [@Bricker](#): > > Mine is a hedging agreement – I’d say it depends on what the results of the vetting review are. If the review indicates, for example, that extensive additional screening and processing procedures are put in place for these six countries, I wonder if “capable of repetition yet evading review” might be uttered here. I assume the plaintiffs would rather just bring a new case rather than argue against mootness, which they might have to do anyway depending on what happens in the interim. > [@Bricker](#): > > And does it both you in the slightest that there is a disconnect between “friendly lower courts” and the Supreme Court? I think what you’re getting at with the question is some kind of suggestion that Ninth and Fourth Circuits are biased or might ignore or misinterpret Supreme Court precedent. If I thought that were true, I would find it troubling. But that’s not what I meant. I am referring to the fact that both circuits now have precedential opinions that are very helpful to plaintiffs who will be navigating what was left unsaid by the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t characterize that as a “disconnect.” ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/185 "2017-06-26T17:08:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And does it both you in the slightest that there is a disconnect between “friendly lower courts” and the Supreme Court? Yes, but I can practically guarantee it’s not for the same reasons that you have. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/186 "2017-06-26T17:14:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It takes four votes to grant cert, and five to dissolve stays. So five justices signed on to that per curiam order dissolving the stays. > > In case that info is relevant to anyone interested in predicting anything. At least five. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/187 "2017-06-26T17:26:15Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > As a practical matter, the majority of the people affected by the ban will be able to show a bona fide connection, especially since the gray areas will get determined by sympathetic lower courts while SCOTUS is out of the office for the summer. Is that right? I don’t know anything about the numbers and would be curious to see. According to the Court, the relevant provision of the Order suspends the “entry of nationals from six of the seven countries designated in EO–1.” And the Court further (effectively) dissolved the injunction as to that section, except with respect to aliens who have a “close familial relationship” with an individual in the United States or a “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course” relationship with an entity (such as an offer of employment or acceptance into a university). Whatever the merits of the decision, is it really true that a majority of foreign nationals from those countries that are seeking entry into the United States fall into those categories? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/188 "2017-06-26T17:32:46Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Is that right? I don’t know anything about the numbers and would be curious to see. According to the Court, the relevant provision of the Order suspends the “entry of nationals from six of the seven countries designated in EO–1.” And the Court further (effectively) dissolved the injunction as to that section, except with respect to aliens who have a “close familial relationship” with an individual in the United States or a “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course” relationship with an entity (such as an offer of employment or acceptance into a university). > > Whatever the merits of the decision, is it really true that a majority of foreign nationals from those countries that are seeking entry into the United States fall into those categories? If all it means is that they have to have a friend or relative in the city they’re visiting, then considering America’s diversity and population, that will probably end up being an easy bar to clear. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/190 "2017-06-26T17:34:38Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Whatever the merits of the decision, is it really true that a majority of foreign nationals from those countries that are seeking entry into the United States fall into those categories? Aside from tourists (whose harms are pretty minor), most of the people who can get a visa to the U.S. from these countries have some established connection–work, school, and family being the most prominent. They are certainly the vast majority of non-tourist visa-holders. The other big category is refugees. There will be decent arguments that a big proportion of them will count as having bona fide contacts, since all refugees in the U.S. come through resettlement agencies, and these agencies have very often arranged for them to have jobs or other connections (e.g., rental housing) on arrival. That’s where a lot of the gray area will come into play. I think the biggest excluded category is refugees who aren’t far enough along in the resettlement process but who were granted refugee status. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect this number is much lower than the visa numbers. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/191 "2017-06-26T17:39:20Z")
> [@Adorable\_Deplorable](#): > > Not hard to imagine how Supremes discussed this case… > > “These are pretty much the same restrictions Barack had in place, right?” > “Yep, almost identical.” > “Ok, so do you guys wanna get burgers or Chinese today?” The Supremes aren’t that stupid. It wasn’t the same. Will this gang legitimize religious discrimination? I wouldn’t bet against it. If Twitler gets to name two more justices, look for them to reaffirm Dred Scott. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/192 "2017-06-26T17:40:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If all it means is that they have to have a friend or relative in the city they’re visiting, then considering America’s diversity and population, that will probably end up being an easy bar to clear. I think it’s pretty clearly a higher bar than that. It refers to a “close familial relationship” and uses as an example a spouse or a mother-in-law. I don’t know what the limit on that is, but it seems more narrow that “a friend or relative.” > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Aside from tourists (whose harms are pretty minor), most of the people who can get a visa to the U.S. from these countries have some established connection–work, school, and family being the most prominent. They are certainly the vast majority of non-tourist visa-holders. > > The other big category is refugees. There will be decent arguments that a big proportion of them will count as having bona fide contacts, since all refugees in the U.S. come through resettlement agencies, and these agencies have very often arranged for them to have jobs or other connections (e.g., rental housing) on arrival. That’s where a lot of the gray area will come into play. > > I think the biggest excluded category is refugees who aren’t far enough along in the resettlement process but who were granted refugee status. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect this number is much lower than the visa numbers. That makes sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/194 "2017-06-26T18:32:52Z")
Oh, look! A new one! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/195 "2017-06-26T18:36:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I wonder how the Trump administration will interpret this: As a sign that they can proceed with their plan fully without restriction, or as a sign that they should proceed with due caution until the Supreme Court reviews the case? And the answer seems to be more the former than the latter: > [@Trump](#): > > “Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective,” Trump said in a statement. “As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.” > > “My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland. **I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.** ” (bolding mine) It wasn’t unanimous-it was “per curiam”. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/196 "2017-06-26T19:00:35Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This is true, of course. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has, historically, not played its cards close to the vest on stays concerning important national issues. It’s a pretty safe bet that refusing to stay the injunction means they’ll uphold it, though not a sure thing. Courts generally shy away from granting relief which would be final in interim orders. Revoking the stay would do that. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/197 "2017-06-26T19:09:19Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Courts generally shy away from granting relief which would be final in interim orders. Revoking the stay would do that. Seems like an odd argument to make in these circumstances, given that they stayed only part of the injunction. What accounts for which part they stayed if not some assessment of the competing claims? And what does that theory make of the dissent from three justices who would have stayed all of the injunctions? No, I don’t think that’s the best explanation here. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/198 "2017-06-26T19:23:38Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I think it’s pretty clearly a higher bar than that. It refers to a “close familial relationship” and uses as an example a spouse or a mother-in-law. I don’t know what the limit on that is, but it seems more narrow that “a friend or relative.” > … Seems the court went beyond any guidance already in the immigration law. There are already categories of relationship when it comes to [Family-based immigration](https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/family/family-preference.html). > [@US State Dept website on Family-based immigration](#): > > \*\*Immediate Relative Immigrant Visas (Unlimited) \*\* > [ul][li]spouse of US citizen[/li][li]unmarried child of US citizen, under age 21, [/li][li]orphan adopted abroad by US citizen [/li][li]parent of US citizen who is at least 21 years old.[/li][/ul] > > **Family Preference Immigrant Visas (Limited)**: These visa types are for specific, more distant, family relationships with a U.S. citizen and some specified relationships with a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)… > [ul][li]**Family First Preference (F1)**: Unmarried sons and daughters of US citizens and their minor children, if any[/li][li]**Family Second Preference (F2)**: spouses, minor children, and unmarried sons and daughters over age 21 of LPRs[/li][li]**Family Third Preference (F3)**: Married sons and daughters of US citizens and their spouses and minor children[/li][li]**Family Fourth Preference (F4):** Brothers and sisters of US citizens, and their spouses and minor children provided the sponsor is age 21 or older[/ul][/li] IMHO all of these relationships would definitely be a “close familial relationship” as it relates to Trump’s EO travel ban and the court’s ruling today. Congress considered various familial relationships and, in their law making capacity, made decisions to treat these relationships differently. But… > [@](#): > > Note: Grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws, and cousins cannot sponsor a relative for immigration. So it is not possible to sponsor your mother-in law for citizenship. You can sponsor your spouse for LPR or citizenship and then your spouse can sponsor his/her mother. Given the language used by the court today the court is counting as a close familial relationship a degree of relation that is not even eligible to be sponsored for immigration. This goes beyond the relationships Congress chose to honor in law and into the realm of judicial policy making. > [@SCOTUS in Trump v International Refugee Assistance Project](#): > > The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. This leaves no clear guidance as to how far afield a relationship might be and still count as a close familial relationship for this purpose. First cousin, ok? Third cousin once removed too distant? No idea. A flood of lawsuits to follow. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/199 "2017-06-26T19:34:40Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > This goes beyond the relationships Congress chose to honor in law and into the realm of judicial policy making. The Court was answering the question of which US persons have a close enough relationship to be fairly considered harmed by the ban. Congress was answering the question of who has a close enough relationship that they may sponsor someone for immigration purposes as a policy matter. They are related, surely, but the idea that Congress was answering the same question as the Court is just mistaken. They were not. So this argument about judicial policymaking is incorrect. (And, in any event, even if Congress were trying to legislate about the scope of Article III standing, they would be the ones out-of-bounds, not the Court.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/200 "2017-06-26T20:57:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It wasn’t unanimous-it was “per curiam”. Yeah, well Trump doesn’t speak Spanish. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2017, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/201 "2017-06-26T21:18:05Z")
I see the court’s decision being cited by persons attempting to gain standing to dispute a denial of a visa where prior precedent would regard the familial distinction set by Congress as beyond the scope of the review by the courts - a political question. Example real scenario: Mrs Iggy is a Colombian national with a biological daughter (lets call her Camila) whose biological father is deceased. Mrs Iggy also has primary caretaker responsibility for her cousin’s son (let’s call him Manuel) in an informal guardianship. Mrs Iggy’s cousin, the biological mother of Manuel, consents to Mrs Iggy adopting Manuel, especially if it would open a path for Manuel to gain US citizenship. However the biological father of Manuel refuses to permit Mrs Iggy to adopt, as is his right under Colombian law. Biologically Mrs Iggy and Manuel are first cousins once removed. Suppose Mrs Iggy and I relocate to the United States. I can sponsor Mrs Iggy and Camila for citizenship under current law. However I cannot sponsor Manuel as he is not legally a step child of mine. And Mrs Iggy cannot, under current law, sponsor Manuel for US immigration once Mrs Iggy gets her LPR or citizenship. Today’s ruling would seem to give Mrs Iggy (or possibly me) potential standing to challenge denial of a visa for Manuel where we did not have standing before. Similarly Mrs Iggy would not under current law have standing to challenge denial of a visa for her aunts, uncles, or cousins - the very relatives who raised her after death of her parents. As an orphan and only child Mrs Iggy cannot sponsor a parent who would then sponsor siblings who could start a chain of migration to bring the family to the States. But perhaps Mrs Iggy could argue now that she is being harmed and she has standing to sue where she would not have standing before. Courts might throw cases out, but I think they opened the door to invite court challenges to a denial of visa in cases where previously the denial was considered dispositive. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/202 "2017-06-27T22:39:50Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > This leaves no clear guidance as to how far afield a relationship might be and still count as a close familial relationship for this purpose. First cousin, ok? Third cousin once removed too distant? No idea. A flood of lawsuits to follow. Agreed. What about the relationship to colleges and universities? Suppose UC Berkeley offered conditional admission to anyone from the six countries provided that they toured the campus in person and applied? After reviewing the application, the conditional admission could be revoked. Does not now everyone in those six countries have a connection to the United States? This split decision will cause more lawsuits that it resolves. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281.md?page=11)