The Trump Administration is taking its fight to implement a controversial executive order halting travel from six largely Muslim countries for 120 days to the highest judicial level: the Supreme Court. Lower courts have blocked parts of President Donald Trump’s revised order–he scrapped a first attempt earlier this year after courts stopped it–over the past few weeks.

Trump’s harsh campaign rhetoric regarding Muslims, critics argued, revealed that his true motivation for instituting the ban was to stop Muslims from coming to the country. Trump has said the order–which blocked travel from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia–is grounded in national security concerns.

In its brief, the administration argued:

The stakes are indisputably high: The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism. The court did not dispute that the president acted at the height of his powers in instituting [the order’s] temporary pause on entry by nationals from certain countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism.

The road to the Supreme Court has been seemingly inevitable. Trump crumpled up his first order, issued on January 27, after a federal appeals court in San Francisco blocked it in February.

The president issued a revised ban in March, which dropped the number of affected countries from seven to six (Iraq was removed), removed specific references to protecting Christian minorities, and allowed for a more case-by-case approach to determine which travelers are allowed into the country. Like the first order, it froze the refugee program for 120 days, and dropped the threshold of admitted refugees each year from 110,000 to 50,000.

If the High Court decides to take up the case, it will be an early test for Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest justice. In his Senate confirmation hearing in March, Gorsuch barely budged when asked about his views on the travel ban. Referring to a previous comment from a senator that Gorsuch would likely preserve the ban, Gorsuch said: “He has no idea how I would rule in that case. And senator, I am not going to say anything here that would gave anybody any idea how I would rule.” When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Gorsuch what he thought of banning other religions or citizens of entire countries, like Jews from Israel, Gorsuch replied:

We have a Constitution. And it does guarantee freedom to exercise. It also guarantees equal protection of the laws and a whole lot else besides, and the Supreme Court has held that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country. I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Takes Travel Ban Battle to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday scrapped a ruling by a lower federal court that deemed otherwise reasonable force by a police officer unreasonable if the officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation.” The justices sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, leaving open a victory for the plaintiffs if the court can find wrongdoing on charges other than excessive force.

The case, County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez, involves an incident that took place in October 2010. Los Angeles County police officers were searching a residence for a parole violator who was at-large and apparently armed. A number of officers searched the main area while two deputies, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, burst into a shack in the back of the residence.

In the shack, a homeless couple, Angel Mendez and Jennifer Garcia, who was pregnant, were taking a nap underneath a heap of blankets. Mendez reached for a gun (later discovered to be a BB gun). Conley yelled “Gun!” and the deputies sprayed the couple with bullets.

Both lived, but Mendez had to get part of his leg amputated. Meanwhile, the parolee the officers were seeking was not found on the property. Mendez and Garcia sued the deputies and Los Angeles County on three Fourth Amendment claims: warrantless entry, knock-and-announce, and excessive force. The lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all three counts, awarding the couple $4 million.

But the Supreme Court, in a 8-0 vote–Justice Neil Gorsuch had not been confirmed when the case was argued in March–vacated the lower courts’ excessive force ruling. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit argued the officers’ use of force was reasonable, but because the two deputies provoked the situation, their actions were ultimately unreasonable. The justices disagreed with that outlook, halting the $4 million recovery for the plaintiffs.

“The basic problem with the provocation rule,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, is that it “provides a novel and unsupported path to liability in cases in which the use of force was reasonable.” He said the Fourth Amendment “provides no basis for such a rule,” adding: “A different Fourth Amendment violation cannot transform a later, reasonable use of force into an unreasonable seizure.”

In a statement, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs cheered the decision: “This invented rule put the lives of deputies into danger by causing them to hesitate in using reasonable force to defend themselves for fear of later civil liability,” it said.

Alito did allow, however, that the Ninth Circuit could still find reason to award damages to the plaintiffs. He wrote: “For example, if the plaintiffs in this case cannot recover on their excessive force claim, that will not foreclose recovery for injuries proximately caused by the warrantless entry.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Two LA Cops Who Shot a Homeless Couple appeared first on Law Street.