(National Sentinel) SCOTUS Rules: The U.S. Supreme Court in recent weeks has overridden several lower federal courts that had issued rulings unfavorable to the Trump administration, suggesting to some legal observers that they may have been politically motivated.
The high court has issued a number of eyebrow-raising orders in cases that involved the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and the latest iteration of President Donald J. Trump’s travel ban.
The SCOTUS rulings deal fairly harshly with these lower court rulings from federal courts in Hawaii, California, and Maryland.
The latest rebuke came in a Wednesday order pertaining to the number of documents the federal government is required to release in connection to a lawsuit challenging the president’s termination of the DACA program, which was begun by President Obama via executive order. At the time, Republicans criticized it as an unconstitutional order that essentially overrode existing federal immigration statutes, something that only Congress has the power to change.
The amnesty initiative extended temporary legal status to some foreign nationals who were brought illegally into the U.S. as children.
A 9th Circuit court in California ordered the Trump administration to release every document tied to the president’s decision to rescind the program. The administration argued that it should not be required to publicize its internal policy deliberations.
The order appears to be somewhat of a compromise, as the justices split five to four along ideological lines on Dec. 8 regarding the same issue.
But in SCOTUS’ most recent ruling on the subject, all justices agreed that the California federal court order was “overly broad,” and that its breadth warranted a not-so-subtle rebuke from the high court.
“The government makes serious arguments that at least portions of the district court’s order are overly broad,” the Supreme Court’s ruling reads, going on to note that the lower court should have permitted the government to temporarily conceal its documents while resolving arguments in favor of their continued concealment.
It’s not common for the high court to get involved in a dispute that relates to evidence-gathering, as Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his Dec. 8 dissent.
It goes on to say that the lower court should have allowed the government to temporarily shield the documents while resolving arguments in favor of their continued concealment.
“That the Court reviewed this matter at all suggests that at least some of the justices believe lower courts have treated the administration with imprudence or intemperance, warranting a reprimand,” the Daily Caller reported.
The Supreme Court has also demonstrated some impatience with lower federal courts’ decisions to halt Trump’s travel bans.
In early December the justices issued a pair of rulings that allow the president’s most recent travel bans to take full effect, which overturned two lower courts that had initially barred them from taking effect. At least one of those courts — in Hawaii — tied the ruling to statements Trump made on the campaign trail as ‘evidence’ of his bias against Muslims, not the law.
“The rulings, which drew dissents from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, are terse and straightforward, suggesting the Court sees little ambiguity in the cases and believes the Trump administration will ultimately prevail,” The DC noted.
Advertising disclaimer: Click here
What are your thoughts?Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 The National Sentinel