President of the ABA Denounces Events in Charlottesville

The President of the American Bar Association (ABA), Linda Klein, has recently denounced the heinous events in Charlottesville, Virginia. Her reasoning is that, although the United States’ Constitution protects free speech and the right to assemble, violence against other peoples is never protected by the United States’ Constitution.

In the official statement made by the entire American Bar Association about the Virginia tragedy that took place over the weekend President Klein makes it clear that it’s mourning but ever vigilant. The ABA is keeping track of the legal details to make sure that the Department of Justice investigates all possible civil rights’ violations that may have taken place in Virginia over the weekend. Ill intent and premeditation might not be as difficult to prove in this case as in others.

The rights of freedom of expression and freedom of speech are enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean that rallies can even boil over into overt violence without legal ramifications. In its official statement the ABA blamed an overall political environment that has become “so divisive and driven by differences and hatred” for spurring on the horrible events that took place in Virginia.

The American Bar Association called for all peoples to come together and stoke a communal need protect the rights of all citizens. After all, the right to free speech and freedom of expression are predicated on the notion that we all must share a tolerance for the beliefs of others. The rights of all 320 million Americans are protected under the United States’ Constitution and our communities ought to reflect that mutual respect, according to ABA President Klein.

This clarion call for tolerance might be catching on in the community at large since a new movement under the hashtag banner of “#unitetheright” has taken off, according to a recent Washington Post article. President Klein muses that perhaps Americans have become so fixated on the issues that divide this great nation that Americans have lost sight of the common values that make it great.

Justice, in the end, might yet prevail. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating possible civil rights’ violations and allegations of hate crimes swirling around the rallies that took place in Virginia over the weekend. President Klein and the rest of the ABA hope that these investigations proceed unimpeded by politics and that communities mourn and mend along commonly shared values.


The Justice Department Is Giving Local Police Stations The Ability To Confiscate property

With the new administration, the Justice Department is now reinstating an old program that allowed local law enforcement to confiscate goods of suspected criminals. Law enforcement will also have the right to keep or sell the goods and use the funds for their operations.

At the surface, it may seem acceptable for criminals to have a property that was purchased with dirty money liquidated to help the local community. In reality, it can also be abused to simply steal property as law enforcement only needs suspicion or association to confiscate.

Attorney General Eric Holder from the previous administration had gotten rid of the program allowing confiscation without criminal convictions. This had ultimately led to corrupt officers needing to go through the proper legal channels to confiscate goods and ultimately had thwarted theft. It was still allowed to a certain degree when there were major threats to public safety.

Most state laws have their own rules regarding property seizure and most of them are so strict that it is difficult to do it without conviction. Thanks to the forfeiture sharing program, police can bypass state law and go right for the property. They can keep 80 percent of the proceeds and the federal government keeps their 20 percent cut.

Abuse Of Power?

The ACLU is already panicking about the possibility of this program being abused like it was before under the Bush administration. They claim that forfeiture in the first place is a violation of our rights and it is especially abusive when it is done without prosecution.

For example, Rhonda Cox had her vehicle taken by the police when it was suspected that stolen parts were used to repair it. In this case, the law enforcement used a policy that is supposed to take down drug kingpins and threats to national security but instead used it to make a few thousand dollars in revenue.

Since the new Attorney General Sessions is a supporter of the War on Drugs, it is suspected that the confiscation program will be used two-fold. The Attorney General assures us that there are safeguards to prevent abuse, but it was not the case when used previously.

Besides, the majority of the general public is against seizure of property without a prosecution. It is also hypocritical that Sessions claims to support states rights in most cases but is fine with overriding state seizure laws when it is convenient.





Sarah Palin’s Lawsuit Against The Times Progresses

The lawyers for the New York Times took an aggressive public stance recently, declaring that they intend to seek an early dismissal of Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against the Times. If this legal maneuver succeeds, it will put an immediate stop to this legal drama. Palin initiated the suit when the Times published an article that explicitly linked Palin with a tragic mass shooting. According to the lawyers representing the newspaper, the Times did not intentionally act with actual malice when it published the editorial. Although pushing for early dismissal is a fairly common move for civil defendants, experts believe that in this case, there is a good chance that the maneuver may have teeth. U.S. law says that in order for Palin to win, a preponderance of evidence must show that the Times acted with malice.

Palin filed this lawsuit in response to the newspaper’s June 14 editorial, which linked a 2011 shooting in Tucson with Palin’s pro-gun stance. According to the editorial, Palin’s political action committee had produced an ad that showed Democratic lawmakers beneath crosshairs. In reality, the ads in question only showed crosshairs superimposed over Democrat-held districts. Experts are divided about whether the alleged defamation represented a deliberate attempt to cause Palin harm. If the court rules that the defamation statue does apply in this case, Palin might win compensatory and punitive damages. Sources report that Palin’s team is seeking at least $75,000 in damages. Few believe that this case will settle out of court under any circumstances.

According to the lawyers defending the Times, the alleged offense was nothing more than a simple mistake that was corrected within 12 hours. Generally, newspapers are not held legally liable for honest mistakes. In this matter, the Times is represented by the law firm of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz. This is a serious firm with a long history of courtroom success. The presiding judge in this case is Southern District Judge J. Rakoff. Most commentators on both sides of the issue agree that Rakoff is an impartial force that should decide the case in a fair, dignified manner. Although defamation suits are fairly common, evidentiary standard for success is quite high for suits such as this. Therefore, most legal experts believe that Palin’s legal team will have a tough time succeeding. In any case, it could take quite some time before this civil legal matter is fully resolved.

A Federal Judge Block’s California’s Gun Control Law

Recently, a judge blocked a new California law dealing with gun control. The law in question banned high-capacity magazines that were capable of containing 10 or more rounds. Back in 2000, California made it illegal to buy or sell equipment of this nature in the state. Under the new law, anyone convicted of possessing a high-capacity magazine can face a maximal charge of $100 and as much as one year in a jail cell. The National Rifle Association (NRA) of San Diego quickly sued to stop the law, claiming it was unconstitutional. This is hardly surprising, since the NRA is one of the most active litigants in the area contesting gun control legislation.

A federal court in San Diego issued a preliminary injunction in favor of NRA. This injunction immediately halted the enforcement of this state law. Although a Sacramento court previously upheld this law, the new ruling will take precedence in the state of California. This is a controversial decision in many ways. Quite a few legal scholars are furiously debating whether or not this was a justified ruling. In time, it will become more clear exactly what fate high-capacity magazines have in California.

In his 66-page ruling, Judge R. Benitez excoriated the gun control law in question. According to Benitez, the new law crosses the line into violating the Second Amendment, the U.S. constitutional amendment granting its citizens gun rights. Of course, California has the option to appeal this ruling. It is possible that this ruling will make it all the way up to the Supreme Court. If that happens, the newly installed Justice Gorsuch may take the spotlight in his new role as a conservative-leaning Supreme Court justice. At the same time, Justice Anthony Kennedy has often played the role of the swing voter in cases such as these. Whatever the final outcome of this case, it may take quite some time before it is fully resolved.

In Illinois, Judge Stops Tax on Sugary Drinks From Going Into Effect

Hours before it would go into effect, an Illinois judge stopped the completion of a Chicago legal effort that would tax drinks with high sugar content.

Citing that the lawsuit filed by vendors must first blow over, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Kubasiak temporarily paused the implementation of the sugary tax. It was meant to begin on Saturday. The lawsuit, which sellers submitted on Tuesday, calls the mandate “unconstitutionally vague” and contends that it will unfairly tax different beverages in different amounts.

Kubasiak said that he believed his choice will safeguard concerns for all sides.

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle immediately made a statement that the county would try to undo this ruling and continue to pursue the tax.

The Cook County measure follows in the footsteps of sweetened drink tax laws already in place in Seattle, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Pertaining to soda, sports beverages, and energy drinks, the bill was ratified by the county’s Board of Commissioners in November.

David Ruskin, the lawyer for the Illinois Retailer’s Association, argued that if the tax was implemented and then rescinded, consumers would have no way to get their money back. Ruskin also said that the repercussions would be severe for grocers who refused to adhere to the “unconstitutionally vague” tax.

While acknowledging that the law may be flawed, county lawyer Sisavanh Baker explained that without the tax, Cook County would be deprived of $17 million of potential monthly revenue. In Preckwinkle’s statement, she mentioned that she hoped to address the loss of income with personnel cutbacks, among other ways.

Ruskin also claims that the tax on sugared drinks would leave these businesses out from inclusion with the SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This program assists low-income people in affording groceries.

However, the county’s attorney, James Beligrates, asserts that the lawsuit’s claim about SNAP is misleading because these businesses wouldn’t receive the tax on the SNAP goods.

The two sides will make their arguments at a hearing on July 12th.

Texas Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling on Gay Marriage Benefits

Almost exactly two years ago, in late June 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal and states with bans against gay marriage were acting unconstitutionally. Gay marriage is a hot-button topic in the United States; even though gay marriage is legal, many American citizens continue to argue against same-sex marriage.

Texas is known for having staunchly conservative stances towards many controversial issues. Although citizens of every state, including Texas, are not exclusively against or in support of gay marriage, the Texas Supreme Court has taken a stance against gay marriage.

Married couples in the United States are recipients of several benefits, including saving taxes through joint returns, being exempt from gift and estate taxes for belongings left to spouses, spousal Social Security benefits, among many others. Texas’ Supreme Court recently ruled that couples in same-sex marriages are not privileged to benefits provided for marriage through the United States government.

The 2015 United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriages was legally known as Obergefell v. Hodges. Although this case did make it legal for gay and lesbian couples to legally tie the knot, spousal benefits such as Social Security payments to significant others were not taken care of. Because the 2015 Supreme Court ruling did not touch on spousal benefits, the Supreme Court of the state of Texas found that spousal benefits were not due to same-sex married couples.

Same-sex marriage controversy in Texas dates back four years ago to 2013. Former Houston Mayor Annise Parker granted spousal benefits to a same-sex couple, in which the city they lived in approved of same-sex marriage. Mayor Parker was sued by Texas state Republicans and two Houston citizens, reversing the decision of granting them benefits as a married couple.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and social group Texas Values broke news as publicly supporting the court’s recent decision, whereas LGBT groups in Texas have publicly opposed the decision. LGBT legal support group Lambda Legal stated they plan to appeal the oppositional ruling made June 30th, 2017, in Texas’ Supreme Court up to the level of United States Supreme Court. However, because the Supreme Court hears only a tiny fraction of cases forwarded to their jurisdiction, the recent ruling is likely to go unchanged.

Finding a Lawyer

There are a lot of people today who need legal advice. With all of the changes going on in the industry, it is hard for people to keep up in some cases. One of the biggest changes that is happening is the move to online legal advice. Every industry is changing with the new options that are available online. This is especially true in the legal world. Here are some of the ways that legal advice online can impact the industry in the future.

Cheaper Services

One of the reasons that legal advice is so expensive is that there are few options in many areas. If you want to get legal advice, you generally have one or two places to go in small towns. With more competition online, the legal service teams will have to lower their prices in order to compete.

Overall, this is a good thing for the industry. Far too many people have to spend thousands of dollars for simple legal advice. This is hurting a lot of families who need quality legal advice at an affordable price.

Better Service

Another great thing about offering legal services online is that the customer service will be better. Instead of having to wait for someone to get back with you over a couple of days, you can generally get legal advice almost instantly. A lot of people are excited about all of the potential changes that are going to happen because of this shift.

If you are stuck in a legal issue, it is nice to be able to go online and find a lawyer who fits within your budget and timeline. Not only that, but you can read online reviews before you go out and decide who you want to hire.

Final Thoughts

There are a lot of people who do not like to deal with lawyers. With all of the changes that are starting to take place in the industry, now is the time to understand how these changes will impact you. Many people are excited about the future of the industry. In the coming years, many experts believe that more innovation is needed in order to keep the industry moving forward. For consumers, all of these changes either mean more options or less expensive services. This is great for an industry that has a lot of negative connotation from many people.

False Memories and False Confessions – NPR Discusses the Case of the Beatrice Six

In 2009, six individuals from Beatrice, Nebraska were exonerated for the crime of murdering an elderly woman in 1985 after new DNA evidence was brought to light proving their innocence. Even so, many of the members of the “Beatrice Six” still report having memories of committing the crime the night it happened. In a recent report from NPR’s ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, host Audie Cornish talked with The New Yorker writer Rachel Aviv about why this may be.

During their discussion, they talk about what happened at the scene of the crime. Police could find no leads as to who could have be the perpetrator despite large amounts of physical evidence left behind. An informant implicated JoAnn Taylor and Joseph White as suspects, who were arrested. Neither could remember the events of the night due to being intoxicated and were convinced of their wrongdoing by police threats.

After being told to recount who else was responsible for the crime through dreams by psychologist Wayne Price, Taylor and White eventually implicated Thomas Winslow, James Dean, Kathy Gonzales, and Debra Shelden as accomplices. All were eventually tried and convicted for crimes they never committed.

Aviv goes on to explain why Doctor Price asked them to do this, talking about how the idea of recovering repressed traumatic memories through things like dreaming was a popular idea in psychology at the time. Calling it an “epidemic”, she goes on to say it was quickly discredited after reaching its most pervasive form.

Despite not having committed the crime, two of the Beatrice Six still to this day report having vivid memories of what happened that night. Aviv then talks about the idea of implanting false memories into people and how it shapes who they are, planning to expand on the topic in a future issue of The New Yorker.

For JoAnn Taylor and Joseph White, this is what happened. Despite not having committed any crimes, they were convinced that they had by the police’s detailed descriptions of what could have happened, implicating four unrelated parties based on poor advice from a psychologist.

At the time of their release, the true culprit of the crime was caught based on the same DNA evidence that freed the Beatrice Six. The five surviving members (White died in 2011) are currently engaged in a lawsuit against Gage County, Nebraska over false imprisonment and police misconduct.

President Trump Adds Lawyer From Washington To His Legal Team

The president has a new lawyer on his legal team now. He chose to add a veteran lawyer named John Dowd to his team. Mr. Dowd was added to represent the president in the recent allegations about the possible collusion in Russia with the Trump campaign. This investigation also includes the criminal probe which is being lead by special counsel Mueller.

Lawyer John Dowd has represented many white-collar criminal cases and will be in partner with other lawyers in Trump’s team which includes a defense lawyer from New York named Marc Kasowitz. Dowd is known for representing United State’s Senator John McCain during an investigation on congressional ethics charges in a bank scandal in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Mr. McCain was cleared on all charges in the matter and owed it to the hard work of Dowd.

The investigation including the President states that Russia denies any interference and that the White House denies to have had any collusion with Moscow in the situation. A special counsel is currently looking into the matter to find out whether Trump is trying to obstruct the investigation. Mueller is turning his investigation around to find if there are any possible ties between the government in Russia and President Trump’s campaign. There are allegations stating that some U.S. officials were meddling in the election in 2016.

James Comey, the former FBI Director, has testified earlier in the month that the president had asked him to stop the bureau’s investigation that is ongoing of Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Both the House Intelligence Committees and the Senate are performing their own investigations about the possible ties between the government in Russia and president Trump’s campaign. According to, the legal team for Trump are also expecting a new lawyer to be added for fighting these allegations on the president.

A Request from ABA to The Supreme Court to Insist on Funding Sufficiency for Investigations After a Conviction

In an amicus brief that was filed Friday by the ABA, the legal organization demands that the U.S Supreme Court must not admit the decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans that imposes stiffer customary conditions for investigating post-conviction claims. The PDF brief indicated the intention of Avestas Manuel Carlos to seek funds from the court for hiring a legal professional he thought should have been contracted by the first attorneys he engaged in the Avestas v. Davis hearing. When the Federal law establishes that there is a reasonable necessity for a defendant to be represented, then it permits the solicitation of funding.

A case that came to the limelight was in 2016 when the 5th Circuit set a precedent for individuals like Avestas who demonstrated a reasonable need for representation but could not meet the high cost or standards for legal representation without recourse to funding by the court for the development of the case. But according to the amicus brief by the ABA, the decision by the tribunal was “restrictive and circular and, therefore, it supported the argument. According to the amicus brief, the rule of “substantial need” requires the establishment of a viable claim on the merits of the case by the counsel before the circuit can permit the funding necessary for the investigation of the merits.

The brief noted that the attorneys should have carried out an adequate and independent verification of the facts to uphold Avestas’ argument that his initial counsel was ineffective and so did not meet the requirement of effective assistance. The views are supported by the Criminal Justice Standards and Death Penalty Guidelines by ABA. If the original attorney was ineffective, the brief highly recommends the need for further investigations because the required information might be contained in the records of the prior proceedings by the court. Failure to fund the experts or investigators, according to ABA Death Penalty Representation Project, often leads to ineffective assistance.

And the brief claims that are a problem because in the case like that of Avestas, the ruling by the 5th Circuit sets up a Catch-22 situation for the defendants because they cannot hire an investigator before furnishing the court with the same facts that the investigator would be expected to unearth. The standards are much higher than what the Federal Statutes prescribes. The brief concludes that such results prevent the attorneys from acting in consistence with the professional standards.

Anacapa Law Group Inc Finds Justice for Polluted Water Ways in California

MATTCO Manufacturing is an independently owned company that specializes in offering oilfield services. The manufacturing company was established in 1974 and has been a sole active provider of a plethora of products generated from custom tailored components. The products seek to complete the OEM solutions for pumps as well as draw works equipment companies. The company specializes in the primary production of three products namely: MATTCO, TTE, and Bear. The products originate from the United States of America. Useful as the products may be, the reports channeled to the court stated that this company has contributed to more environmental damage.


On 7th June 2017, an environmental group took the streets with the aim of suing MATTCO Forge Inc. The lawsuit stated that the company was violating the federal law. The community of California against toxics filed a major complaint against MATTCO Forge Inc through the district court of California. The lawsuit indicated that MATTCO Forge Inc was discharging storm water and channeling it to the waterways of Los Angeles. According to the statement released by the complainant, the environment pollution was beyond control, and the waterways were damaged beyond explanation. The plaintiff stated that MATTCO continuously discharges pollutants as well as contaminated water from the manufacturing facility. In turn, the discharge redirects into the waterways.


While pursuing justice, the plaintiff stated that it was important to summon the defendant to comply with the terms of compensation, monitoring as well as reporting requirements. The compensation strategies also included the defendant being ordered to pay up to $ 37,000 penalty per day. The payment was meant to be made from March 21, 2012, through November 2, 2015. The defendant, MATTCO, was also ordered to restore the original state of the water. This is because the company played a primary role in contributing to the damages. Apart from the two settlement schemes, the company was ordered to settle the attorney fees. Through the services of Jesse Colorado from Anacapa Law Group Inc, the state of California received compensation for polluted waterways.

Anacapa Law Group Inc

Anacapa Law Group is a law firm in California. The company has been of excellent service at seeking justice for the people of California. With a team of professional lawyers like Jesse Colorado, a lawyer specializing in environmental justice, Anacapa Law Group is dedicated to improving the California justice system by initiating justice. Since its establishment, the law firm has won several lawsuits geared towards improving the lens of justice in the society.


Massachusetts Mulls Changes to State Marijuana Laws

As it stands right now in Massachusetts, you can smoke it, but you can’t buy it. Although voters approved a 2016 bill that decriminalizes possession of marijuana for recreational purposes, it’s still very much illegal to purchase marijuana from someone else. Lawmakers struggle to amend the law while marijuana advocates worry about straying too far from the original intent of the voters. In addition to possessing marijuana, Massachusetts residents can grow marijuana for their own use. They can also smoke it.

The state is preparing for a big change as licensed marijuana retailers can soon manufacture and sell marijuana in the state. Some say this system of retail sales only creates taxation and hurts people who grow their own marijuana. The retailers can’t start selling until 2018.

Lawmakers are thinking about raising the legal age for marijuana use to twenty five. This would be a significant change from the current legal age of twenty one. Lawmakers also say that higher taxes on marijuana sales are more appropriate than what the law currently calls for. They say that other states tax marijuana at far higher rates than Massachusetts. The law voters passed in Massachusetts taxes marijuana at less than four percent, while the State of Washington taxes marijuana at a rate of thirty-seven percent. Lawmakers who support the changes say that higher taxes could fund social service programs such as job programs for teens or substance abuse treatment.

Opponents of the tax increases say that pushing the taxes upwards can nudge consumers towards other options or substances. They say that it’s only going to lead to a black market or send consumers to other states for purchases. They say that Maine’s rate is ten percent, and Massachusetts shouldn’t make its own rate too much higher, or the state won’t be competitive. Proponents counter that lowering the household plant limit that currently sits at twelve plants can offset some of these concerns and encourage commercial purchases. They also say that they have no intentions to completely change the intent of the voters.

Lawmakers expect to finalize proposals in the next few months. There are a number of ideas on the table including establishing a legal limit for driving while marijuana is active in the driver’s system. They also say that marijuana-laced candy and other edibles need regulation. Lawmakers also want to look at giving local authorities more control over locations and rules for marijuana retail locations.


Advocates protest possible changes in marijuana sales law

Connecticut First State To Have Animal Advocates In Courtroom

A new law in Connecticut makes it the first state in the U.S. to provide court-appointed advocates for animals who have been abused or involved in an animal cruelty case. This law for the animals is similar to those advocates that represent victims in child abuse cases. There are currently seven lawyers and a law professor from Connecticut that have been approved to be these advocates.

Last week, a student of the University of Connecticut was the first to use one of the approved animal advocates in a dogfighting case. The case involved pitbulls who were found to be wandering around and from a home that was filled with feces and rotting food. One of the three dogs had to be euthanized because of the horrible condition it was currently in and the fighting it had been involved in.

The student was unsuccessful in getting the accused man banned from being allowed to participate in a program designed to clear first-time offenders after successful completion. This outcome of the case has happened before and the new Connecticut law was named because of it.

Many studies have been performed to show a direct correlation between animal abusers and violence against people. In one particular study conducted by the Humane Society, the police department of Chicago found that an average of sixty-five percent of arrested individuals who were charged with an animal abuse offense had been arrested afterwards for abuse or violence against another person. Another study which was conducted showed that animal abuse was a big risk factor for people becoming violent against their significant others.

The Humane Society director in Connecticut hopes that with this new law in place, there will begin to be a better procedural outcome in all animal abuse cases. She also stated that the Humane Society is excited about the new law and happy that the judges seem to be taking full advantage of it.

Original Article Source:

The State of Texas Implements a New Law

The State of Texas recently approved a new law regarding immigrants from Mexico. The new law is known as the SB4 and is meant to address the issue of Mexican immigrants entering the state. However, this is not the first time that the state is dealing with immigration issues. These issues existed long before Texas annexation. However, some of these laws to curb immigration in Texas have been deemed as discriminative. Some of the laws that the court recently termed as discriminative include the state ID law as well as restricting maps. Immigrants have had to deal with other major issues such as housing segregation as well as employment discrimination. In the worst scenarios, massacres and mob violence have been experienced in the state all due to immigration.

What you should know about the SB4 law
This law has been tipped to ensure public safety in the state. However, critics of this law say that it puts immigrants at risks of public officials and law enforcement officers. This law copies the one that had earlier been implemented in the state of Texas. Despite the efforts by the state officials to enforce this law, legal fights opposing the law have been filed in the Supreme Court.

This new law means that there are more people to enforce the law other than a police officer. Under the new law, people who can enforce the law include district attorney, sheriffs, city council members as well as county commissions. The new law allows the mentioned people to look into the immigration status of a person in the state of Texas. This means that even campus police and government officials cannot prevent a search by federal immigration officers. The law also has a provision for removing people who fail to enforce the law. This is the part where appointed and elected officials are relieved of duty if they materially limit or prohibit the search by the federal officials. That’s not all as they can be prosecuted with Class A misdemeanor charges. These are serious charges as they attract a fine of $500 for first timers and $25,000 for repeat offenders.

This new law allows employees to turn in people who do not comply with the law. This means that sheriffs, police officers, as well as government officials, will have to be careful in their efforts as they can be rattled at any moment. However, for this to apply, the officials must have probable cause before they can inquire about the immigration status of someone.

The Supreme Court to Decide of the Travel Ban

President Donald Trump has been making headlines for many reasons, but the latest one is banning immigrants from six nations from entering the United States. He achieved this through an executive order. However, this ban did not last for long as it was overturned by the judicial system of the United States. After being overturned, the Justice Department is seeking the Supreme Court to decide on the issue. These requests were made last Thursday and rulings are expected in a week’s time. Regarding this issue, the Department of Justice has requested the Supreme Court to act a little faster as the issue is very pressing. This comes at a bad timing when the judges of the Supreme Court are about to leave for the summer holiday. Even if they make the decision, they will have to defer their arguments after they return in fall.

When the issue was petitioned in courts, the judges reasoned that the president acted in bad faith and the executive order had to be overturned. However, in a seven person’s bench, the Department of Justice will require four votes for the executive order to be upheld. Using the language of the lawyers, this petition is referred to as certiorari petition. If the Supreme Court is to grant the stay for these executive orders, the travel ban will revive the ban. On the other hand, it will offer the justices time to deliberate on the issue.

Experts say that the Supreme Court will agree to listen to the appeal as this is always the case with such cases involving a presidential initiative. After this, a Supreme Court review is expected to follow. However, this is the hardest part of the process as difficult questions are usually asked. Also, many Americans and the world are watching as the decision is expected to have major consequences.

For people who don’t understand the issue, the current government is seeking to ban people from several Muslim nations from entering the United States. The government says that this is until it has established a better vetting procedure. However, the move is seen as a ploy by Donald Trump who is known for religious intolerance and opposition to immigration reforms. During the overturning of the issue by a Virginia Court, the court said that the order violated the first amendment where the government should not prohibit the establishment of religion. The Supreme Court issued a brief saying that it understands the magnitude of the case.