Report: Supreme Court Deeply Divided on Travel Ban, But the Five Conservative Justices Seem to Favor the Administration's Position
Update: NPR, AP, and Reuters All Seem More Certain than the Daily Caller That Trump Will Win

The liberal judges spent a lot of time asking about pull-the-heartstrings hypotheticals designed to elicit sympathy, instead of asking about, you know, the actual law.

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared deeply divided Wednesday over the lawfulness of President Donald Trump's travel sanctions.

Though a tenuous majority appeared to favor the administration, the liberal bloc peppered Solicitor General Noel Francisco with brutal hypotheticals and heart-wrenching examples of migrants denied entry to the United States since Trump took office.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Francisco how thoroughly the court could review a ban on migration from Israel enacted by an openly anti-Semitic president, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered why a ten-year-old with cerebral palsy from a sanctioned country was denied a visa, despite exceptions proscribed for immigrants seeking medical care.

...

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who likely holds the deciding vote, appeared to agree, noting the order at issue was more detailed than similar proclamations issued by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. He elsewhere rejected hypotheticals proffered by Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, noting other legal avenues exist to address the abuses envisioned in their scenarios.

Here's hoping. The decision is expected in June.

Update: The Daily Caller might have been too nuanced and fair and balanced in its coverage, at least compared to the AP, Reuters, and NPR, who all seem sure Trump's position will carry the court.

posted by Ace of Spades at 02:36 PM

| Access Comments