Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that declared a nationwide right to abortion, is facing its most serious challenge in 30 years in front of a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has been remade by three appointees of President Donald Trump.

“There are no half measures here,” said Sherif Girgis, a Notre Dame law professor who once served as a law clerk for Justice Samuel Alito.

A ruling that overturned Roe and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey would lead to outright bans or severe restrictions on abortion in 26 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

The case being argued Wednesday comes from Mississippi, where a 2018 law would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, well before viability. The Supreme Court has never allowed states to ban abortion before the point at roughly 24 weeks when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The justices are separately weighing disputes over Texas’ much earlier abortion ban, at roughly six weeks, though those cases turn on the unique structure of the law and how it can be challenged in court, not the abortion right. Still, abortion rights advocates were troubled by the court’s 5-4 vote in September to allow the Texas law, which relies on citizen lawsuits to enforce it, to take effect in the first place.

“This is the most worried I’ve ever been,” said Shannon Brewer, who runs the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The clinic offers abortions up to 16 weeks of pregnancy and about 10% of abortions it performs take place after the 15th week, Brewer said.

She also noted that since the Texas law took effect, the clinic has seen a substantial increase in patients, operating five days or six days a week instead of two or three.

Lower courts blocked the Mississippi law, as they have other abortion bans that employ traditional enforcement methods by state and local officials.

The Supreme Court had never before even agreed to hear a case over a pre-viability abortion ban. But after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death last year and her replacement by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the third of Trump’s appointees, the court said it would take up the case.

Trump had pledged to appoint “pro-life justices” and predicted they would lead the way in overturning the abortion rulings. Only one justice, Clarence Thomas, has publicly called for Roe to be overruled.

The court could uphold the Mississippi law without explicitly overruling Roe and Casey, an outcome that would satisfy neither side.

Abortion-rights advocates say that result would amount to the same thing as an outright ruling overturning the earlier cases because it would erase the rationale undergirding nearly a half-century of Supreme Court law.

“A decision upholding this ban is tantamount to overruling Roe. The ban prohibits abortion around two months before viability,” said Julie Rikelman, who will argue the case for the clinic.

On the other side, abortion opponents argue that the court essentially invented abortion law in Roe and Casey, and shouldn’t repeat that mistake in this case.

If the justices uphold Mississippi’s law, they’ll have to explain why, said Thomas Jipping, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow. They can either overrule the two big cases, Jipping said, “or they’re going to have to come up with another made-up rule.”

Conservative commentator Ed Whelan said such an outcome would be a “massive defeat” on par with the Casey decision in 1992, in which a court with eight justices appointed by Republican presidents unexpectedly reaffirmed Roe.

This court appears far more conservative than the one that decided Casey, and legal historian Mary Ziegler at Florida State University’s law school, said the court probably would “overrule Roe or set us on a path to doing so.”

Chief Justice John Roberts might find the more incremental approach appealing if he can persuade a majority of the court to go along. Since Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has moved in smaller steps on some issues, even when it appeared there was only a binary choice.

It took two cases for the court to rip out the heart of the federal Voting Rights Act that curbed potentially discriminatory voting laws in states with a history of discrimination.

In the area of organized labor, the court moved through a series of cases that chipped away at public sector unions’ power.

The high court also heard two rounds of arguments over restrictions on independent spending in the political arena before removing limits on how much money corporations and unions can pour into election advocacy.

If the court looks to public sentiment, it would find poll after poll that shows support for preserving Roe, though some surveys also find backing for greater restrictions on abortion.

Mississippi is one of 12 states ready to act almost immediately if Roe is overturned. Those states have enacted so-called abortion trigger laws that would take effect and ban all or nearly all abortions.

Women in those states wanting abortions could face drives of hundreds of miles to reach the nearest clinic or they might obtain abortion pills by mail. Medication abortions now account for 40% of abortions.

Some legal briefs in the case make clear that the end of Roe is not the ultimate goal of abortion opponents.

The court should recognize that “unborn children are persons” under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, a conclusion that would compel an end to almost all legal abortions, Princeton professor Robert George and scholar John Finnis wrote. Finnis was Justice Neil Gorsuch’s adviser on his Oxford dissertation, an argument against assisted suicide.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/supreme-court-set-to-take-up-all-or-nothing-abortion-fight

The post Supreme Court set to take up all-or-nothing abortion fight first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

(CNN) — A coalition of Texas abortion providers went back to the Supreme Court Thursday, asking the justices to expedite a review of the state law that bars abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

The law has been in effect for 23 days, but the federal appeals court hearing the challenge has only set a tentative hearing schedule for December. The providers are asking the justices to — in effect — step in and decide a key issue in the case now, instead of waiting for a federal appeals court to rule on the issue.

The new court papers mark the latest furious attempt on behalf of providers to stop a law that bars most abortions before a woman even knows she is pregnant. The law, which challengers say was drafted with the specific intent to evade judicial review, is now being challenged by providers in federal and state courts, as well as by the Department of Justice.

In the new brief, the providers say the law is written in a way that makes it almost impossible to challenge because it bars Texas officials from enforcing it and instead allows private individuals to bring suit against anyone who may assist in helping a person obtain an abortion performed after six weeks. The clinics are asking the Supreme Court to decide “whether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.”

Separately, they have filed papers asking the court to put their request on a fast track. Under normal circumstances supporters of the law would have had about 30 days to respond, and the process could drag into the winter months. Instead, the clinics want the justices to consider the case October 29 and hear oral arguments in December.

That timing would coincide with the Supreme Court hearing another, completely separate challenge to a Mississippi law that bars most abortions after 15 weeks. Mississippi is asking the court to overturn Roe v. Wade and the court has set arguments for December 1.

If the court were to grant the request from the Texas providers, it could hear the two challenges in the same month.

“Texas intentionally outsourced enforcement of S.B. 8’s blatantly unconstitutional six-week abortion ban to the populace at large as a ploy to insulate the State from responsibility for enacting a law that violates a clearly established federal right,” the clinics wrote.

Under normal circumstances the Supreme Court does not like to rule on an issue until the normal appeals process has played out.

“We’re asking the Supreme Court for this expedited appeal because the Fifth Circuit has done nothing to change the dire circumstances on the ground in Texas,” said Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We’re doing everything we can to block this ban and restore abortion access in Texas.”

In making the unusual request, the clinics noted that providers in neighboring states have reported increases of patients traveling across state lines and other states have begun to push copycat laws.

The clinics had previously asked the justices to block the law before it went into effect, but the high court declined to do so on September 1.

Back then, in an unsigned 5-4 order, the majority wrote that while the clinics had raised “serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law,” they had not met a burden that would allow the court to block it due to “complex” and “novel” procedural questions. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.

Roberts said that he voted to block the law pending appeal to give the courts more time to consider the unusual statute.

Roberts said that the state Legislature had imposed a “prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks” and then “essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large” with the consequence of insulating the state from the responsibility of enforcing the law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the majority’s order “stunning.”

“Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand,” Sotomayor wrote.

“No federal appellate court has upheld such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before viability under current law,” she wrote. “Taken together, the Act is a breathtaking act of defiance — of the Constitution, of this Court’s precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas.”

This story has been updated with additional details.

Source: https://whdh.com/news/texas-abortion-providers-go-back-to-supreme-court-to-expedite-challenge-to-six-week-ban/

The post Texas abortion providers go back to Supreme Court to expedite challenge to six-week ban first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

FILE – In this Nov. 6, 2020, file photo, the Supreme Court is seen at sundown in Washington. The Supreme Court is telling California that it can’t enforce coronavirus-related restrictions that have limited home-based religious worship including Bible studies and prayer meetings.The order from the court late Friday, April 9, 2021, is the latest in a recent string of cases in which the high court has barred officials from enforcing some coronavirus-related restrictions applying to religious gatherings. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Motorists sit inside their vehicles as they wait their turn to be inoculated with a COVID-19 vaccine at Dodger Stadium parking lot in Los Angeles. More California counties are opening up vaccines to younger adults, a week ahead of the state broadening eligibility to everyone 16 and up. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is telling California that it can’t enforce coronavirus-related restrictions that have limited home-based religious worship including Bible studies and prayer meetings.

The order from the court late Friday is the latest in a recent string of cases in which the high court has barred officials from enforcing some coronavirus-related restrictions applying to religious gatherings.

Five conservative justices agreed that California restrictions that apply to in-home religious gatherings should be lifted for now, while the court’s three liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts would not have done so.

California has already, however, announced significant changes loosening restrictions on gatherings that go into effect April 15. The changes come after infection rates have gone down in the state.

The case before the justices involved California rules that in most of the state limit indoor social gatherings to no more than three households. Attendees are required to wear masks and physically distance from one another. Different restrictions apply to places including schools, grocery stores and churches.

“California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise,” allowing hair salons, retail stores, and movie theaters, among other places, “to bring together more than three households at a time,” the unsigned order from the court said. A lower court “did not conclude that those activities pose a lesser risk of transmission than applicants’ proposed religious exercise at home,” it said.

The court acknowledged that California’s policy on gatherings will change next week but said the restrictions remain in place until then and that “officials with a track record of ‘moving the goalposts’ retain authority to reinstate those heightened restrictions at any time.”

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent for herself and her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that the court’s majority was hurting state officials’ ability to address a public health emergency.

“California limits religious gatherings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment. And the State does exactly that: It has adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike. California need not … treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons,” she wrote. She added that “the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons.”

The case before the justices involved two residents of Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area, who want to host small, in-person Bible study sessions in their homes. In an email message Saturday, one of their lawyers, Ryan J. Walsh, said he and his colleagues were “thrilled beyond words” for their clients.

California had defended its policy of restricting social gatherings as “entirely neutral.”

The court has dealt with a string of cases in which religious groups have challenged coronavirus restrictions impacting worship services. While early in the pandemic the court sided with state officials over the objection of religious groups, that changed following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last September and her replacement by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

In November, the high court barred New York from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus. And in February, the high court told California that it can’t bar indoor church services because of the coronavirus pandemic, though it let stand for now a ban on singing and chanting indoors.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-us-supreme-court-california-john-roberts-c98a87b425040761040f726184992dcc

The post High court halts Calif. virus rules limiting home worship first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The former president was impeached on Jan. 13, just one week after a pro-Trump mob overtook the Capitol as Congress and former Vice President Mike Pence were certifying the results of President Biden’s win in the 2020 election.

WHEN DOES THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL START AND HOW DO I WATCH?

Democrats in Congress, and even some Republicans, were outraged that the former president had gathered a rally in Washington, D.C., that day where he repeated his false claims that he won the presidential election and said he did not do enough to stop the attack once his supporters began to breach the Capitol about one hour after his rally’s conclusion.

But Trump’s defenders say he is not responsible for the actions of the criminals that menaced lawmakers and attacked police, and note that later in the day he told his supporters in a Twitter video to go home.

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

---

As the trial begins, Trump’s lawyers are also expected to argue that the Senate can no longer constitutionally convict Trump now that he is out of office — and the House impeachment managers are expected to dispute that — in an affair that represents the finale of Trump’s tumultuous first term, even as rumors persist he may run for a second in 2024.

Here’s what you need to know about Trump’s impeachment trial.

What’s Trump accused of? 

Incitement of insurrection is the fundamental charge behind the impeachment article. But that assertion is backed up by the impeachment managers with a litany of other charges about what actions from Trump incited the insurrection and why.

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, violent rioters, loyal to President Donald Trump, storm the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

---

Those include that Trump lied about the results of the presidential election; that he tried to subvert the accurate and fair result of the election; and that he sent the mob of his supporters to the Capitol.

HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS SLAM TRUMP IN FINAL PRE-TRIAL BRIEF: ‘MOST GRIEVOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME EVER’

“He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged – and foreseeably resulted in – lawless action at the Capitol, such as: ‘if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore,'” the impeachment article says of the Jan. 6 “Save America Rally” Trump organized.

“Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed … unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced members of Congress, the vice president, and congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts,” it continues. The article says the mob aimed to “interfere with the joint session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, Trump supporters gesture to U.S. Capitol Police in the hallway outside of the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Washington. Doug Jensen, an Iowa man at center, was jailed early Saturday, Jan. 9, 2021, on federal charges, including trespassing and disorderly conduct counts, for his alleged role in the Capitol riot. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

---

Read more about the accusations against Trump and his team’s answer to those charges HERE.

How does it work?

The trial will gavel at 1 p.m. on Tuesday with Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chamber’s president pro tempore, presiding in place of Chief Justice John Roberts. The chief justice is constitutionally required to oversee impeachments of presidents, but Roberts chose not to in this case as Trump is no longer commander-in-chief.

Vice President Harris also could have potentially presided over the trial, although senators have historically presided over impeachment proceedings when the person being tried is not the sitting president. The person overseeing the trial is not expected to substantially affect the outcome.

WHO IS SENATE PRO TEMPORE PATRICK LEAHY AND WHY IS HE PRESIDING OVER TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL?

Tuesday will see four hours of debate total, divided between the House impeachment managers and Trump’s counsel about whether the impeachment trial is constitutional. The Senate will then vote by simple majority on if the trial is constitutional, which was affirmed 55-45 in a similar vote last month. If the majority of the Senate says the trial is unconstitutional, which is not expected to be the case, then the impeachment trial would be dismissed immediately.

Chuck Schumer@SenSchumer
This impeachment trial of Donald Trump in the United States Senate will allow for truth and accountability.

The sides will then have until 9 a.m. Wednesday to file any motions, and 11 a.m. Wednesday to file responses to those motions, before the arguments on the merits of the impeachment begin at noon Wednesday. The House will present its case first, and it will be allowed up to 16 total hours of argument over the course of two days.

Then Trump’s lawyers will present their case, also up to 16 hours over two days.

As the trial is currently set up, it will pause at 5 p.m. on Friday until 2 p.m. Sunday in observance of the Jewish Sabbath, at the request of Trump lawyer David Schoen.

But Schoen withdrew that request Monday evening, saying that “I will not participate during the Sabbath; but the role I would have played will be fully covered to the satisfaction of the defense team.” He said that he did not want to delay the proceedings because “I recognize is important to bring to a conclusion for all involved and for the country.”

CAN THE SENATE STOP TRUMP RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AGAIN?

This would mean the Senate could hold a full session on Saturday and would instead take Sunday off. The adjustment is not official yet, but Fox News is told that Schoen’s letter will likely lead the Senate to change its schedule.

After the opening arguments, senators will have four total hours to question the lawyers for each side, then there will be two hours of arguments per party on whether the Senate should bring in any witnesses, which will be followed by a simple majority vote.

Chad Pergram @ChadPergram

Replying to @ChadPergram

12) At the end of that process, the Senate shall listen to closing arguments between both sides. Four hours total are allocated to this, equally divided between the managers and the President’s defense counsel.

---

If the senators do not hear witnesses, it is likely the trial would wrap up by some time next week. If senators do vote to hear witnesses, then that will open up the possibility that the trial could drag on for much longer than anticipated.

Both sides would be allowed depositions and “discovery.” The Senate would then decide which witnesses to hear testimony from. No witnesses can testify until they are first deposed, which would likely happen outside of the Senate floor.

The Senate will also take a vote as to whether it should consider evidence.

After the evidence and witnesses process, whether the Senate votes to hear evidence and witnesses, there will be two hours for the Trump legal team and the House impeachment managers to present closing arguments. Then there will be a vote on whether to convict the former president, which would require a two-thirds supermajority.

Who are the impeachment managers? 

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., leads a team of House impeachment managers that also includes Diana DeGette, D-Colo.; David Cicilline, D-R.I.; Joaquin Castro, D-Texas; Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.; Ted Lieu, D-Calif.; Joe Neguse, D-Colo.; Madeleine Dean, D-Pa.; and nonvoting Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands.

Raskin is a member of the House Oversight Committee, the House Rules Committee and the House Judiciary Committee.

Impeachment manager Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., walks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2021. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

---

He penned a letter to Trump’s legal team this week urging him to testify before, or as part of, his Senate trial. Trump’s legal team denied the request, saying they would not take part in an “unconstitutional” process.

Swalwell, meanwhile, has run into controversy recently

TRUMP LAWYERS RAIL AGAINST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AS ‘POLITICAL THEATER’ ON EVE OF PROCEEDINGS

Learn more about the impeachment managers prosecuting the case against Trump HERE.

Who is on Trumps’ defense team? 

The two lead lawyers on Trump’s defense team are Bruce Castor, the former district attorney for Montgomery County, Pa., and David Schoen, a longtime civil rights attorney who is the chairman of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Criminal Justice Subcommittee. Schoen was also honored for his pro bono work in 1995 by the ABA and was honored for public interest litigation in 2018 by Boston College Law School, his alma mater.

Schoen has ties to former Trump associate Roger Stone, who he represented as he was sentenced to 40 months in prison for witness tampering and other charges in early 2020. And he was one of the final people to meet with Jeffrey Epstein before his death.

Schoen said that Epstein planned to bring him onto his legal team and that he does not believe Epstein killed himself.

“I saw him a few days earlier,” said Schoen on Fox Nation’s “Deep Dive” last year. “The reason I say I don’t believe it was suicide is for my interaction with him that day. The purpose of asking me to come there that day and over the past previous couple of weeks was to ask me to take over his defense.”

Attorney David Schoen speaks to the media, Wednesday, Jan. 6, Schoen is a civil rights lawyer who is on former President Trump’s legal team for his impeachment trial. (Joe Cavaretta/South Florida Sun-Sentinel via AP) MAGS OUT (AP)

---

Castor, according to NBC Philadelphia, recently joined the personal injury firm van der Veen, O’Neill, Hartshorn, and Levin, and joined Trump’s team after getting the permission of the firm’s founding partner, Michael T. van der Veen.

DEM SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY ON TRUMP TRIAL: NOT ‘RIDICULOUS’ FOR GOP TO ARGUE IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL

But van der Veen appears to have joined the Trump legal team as well, signing on to the Trump pretrial brief submitted Monday. It’s unclear what role, if any, he may play at Trump’s trial. But the Wall Street Journal reports that van der Veen and Castor will play a larger role in the trial after Tuesday, when Schoen is expected to lead the defense’s case.

Learn more about Schoen HERE.

Learn more about Castor HERE.

Is the impeachment trial constitutional? 

It depends on who you ask.

Republicans tend to say that the trial is unonstitutional, citing the fact that Trump is now out of office and that impeachment trials for presidents need the chief justice of the United States to preside — and Chief Justice John Roberts will not be there.

Democrats say the trial is constitutional, citing the 1876 trial of former Secretary of War William Belknap, which occurred after he left office. Belknap was acquitted. They also say that a trial is constitutional because there is still a consequence the Senate can level even if it can no longer remove Trump from office — a ban on holding office in the future.

Either way, most scholars, regardless of their opinion, say whether the trial is constitutional is still an open question, as there’s never before been a trial of a former president, and no court has ruled on the issue.

“I admit this is, of course, a matter of first impression and so I don’t think the case that Sen. Paul is making is a ridiculous one,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said on “Fox News Sunday” of Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s argument that the trial is unconstitutional.

And even if Trump’s defense team asked the federal courts for a ruling on this issue, it’s extraordinarily unlikely any court would step in to tell the Senate how to run its business. So the decision of whether the trial is constitutional is basically up to senators.

What are the chances Trump is convicted? 

Extraordinarily slim.

Paul last month raised a point of order in the Senate claiming that an impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional. That forced a vote on the issue, and 45 of the 50 Senate Republicans voted that the trial is unconstitutional.

That means the trial was upheld as constitutional by a vote of 55-45. But it also means 12 Republicans would have to change their minds about whether the trial is even allowed to happen for the Senate to have any shot of convicting Trump.

Besides that, there are political calculations at play. A vote to convict Trump is essentially an invitation for a Trump-backed primary challenge for any Republican. And the general perception within the GOP is that even if Republican elected officials have a distaste for Trump — as shown by Wyoming GOP Rep. Liz Cheney’s resounding victory in a vote of confidence under secret ballot last week — that the party base is still loyal to the former president.

Going on the record against Trump is a massive political risk for any Republican.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

What happens if Trump is convicted? 

However unlikely a conviction is at this point, it could still carry some consequences for the former president.

Though the main point of impeachment is to remove a person from office if convicted, a person can also be barred from holding office in the future. If Democrats do get the 67 votes they need to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection, then they plan to hold a subsequent vote on barring Trump from office in the future. That would only need a simple majority to pass.

If this does happen, Trump could theoretically challenge the constitutionality of the Senate trial in court in the future, aiming to get back his right to run for office. An after-the-fact challenge to the consequences of conviction is likely the only way a court would weigh in on this impeachment.

---

Fox News’ Brooke Singman, Jason Donner, Chad Pergram, and Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.

---

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-impeachment-trial-everything-you-need-to-know

[Disclaimer]

The post Trump’s impeachment trial: Everything you need to know first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Over the dissent of the four more conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals in turning away a request from the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California, in the San Diego area.

CALIFORNIA ANNOUNCES CHURCHES, HOUSES OF WORSHIP CAN REOPEN UNDER CERTAIN GUIDELINES AMID CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK

The church argued that limits on how many people can attend their services violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and had been seeking an order in time for services on Sunday. The church said it has crowds of 200 to 300 people for its services.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court’s four liberals in turning away a request from the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, Calif., in the San Diego area.

Roberts wrote in brief opinion that the restriction allowing churches to reopen at 25% of their capacity, with no more than 100 worshipers at a time, “appear consistent” with the First Amendment. Roberts said similar or more severe limits apply to concerts, movies, and sporting events “where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in dissent that the restriction “discriminates against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses. Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.” Kavanaugh pointed to supermarkets, restaurants, hair salons, cannabis dispensaries, and other businesses that are not subject to the same restrictions.

CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE CORONAVIRUS COVERAGE

Lower courts in California had previously turned down the churches’ requests.

The court also rejected an appeal from two churches in the Chicago area that objected to Gov. Jay Pritzker’s limit of 10 worshipers at religious services. Before the court acted, Pritzker modified the restrictions to allow for up to 100 people at a time. There were no recorded dissents.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-limits-on-church-services-roberts-sides-with-liberals

The post Supreme Court rejects challenge to limits on church services; Roberts sides with liberals first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

-McConnell, in opening remarks, says, ‘finally, some fairness’

-House managers complain about proposed trial rules, claiming McConnell is orchestrating a cover-up

-On party-line votes, Senate rejects Schumer amendments to subpoena White House, State Department, OMB for witnesses and documents

This is how the day unfolded.

7:24 p.m. GOP-controlled Senate rejects Democrats’ effort to subpoena OMB records

McConnell calls for a vote to table, or set aside, Schumer’s amendment calling for the Senate to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for documents related to the military aid to Ukraine.

The amendment is killed 53-47 along strict party lines — just as happened with the two previous Democratic amendments.

Schumer announces a fourth amendment — to subpoena testimony from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

With it still unclear how many more amendments Democrats might offer — and how many more hours of debate that might mean — the Senate then breaks for dinner.

As GOP senators leave the chamber — many grabbing phones and furiously typing on their electronics — they’re huddling just off the floor to enjoy a dinner of — pizza.

7:10 p.m. A long day for senators, stuck in seats, listening to hours of arguments

The first long day of the president’s impeachment trial has taken its toll on senators, who have been forced to sit in silence, relying on water and snacks to sustain them through hours of debate over the resolution setting the parameters for the impeachment trial.

The first person caught dozing was Republican Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho.

At about 5:30 p.m., as Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., spoke in favor of an amendment to subpoena the State Department for records, Risch was slumped over with his head resting in his right hand, and appeared to be sleeping or close to it, though he stirred repeatedly to rub his eyes.

Risch perked up later as Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for President Trump, and Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, took to the floor following Demings.

“What time is it?” Risch could be heard asking when Schiff appeared to run over the time allotted for the managers. He then started tapping the face of his wristwatch, which echoed through the chamber.

Other senators relied on gum and mints to stay alert. GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina was seen popping a mint into his mouth at about 6:10 p.m. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon was seen chewing on his pen.

The Senate is expected to break for dinner between 8 and 9 p.m. ET after a vote to table the Democrats’ third amendment, which seeks to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for records.

— ABC’s Benjamin Siegel

7:04 p.m. Sekulow argues Ukraine aid ultimately delivered without investigation announcement

The president’s personal attorney and part of his defense team Jay Sekulow repeated arguments from Republicans that the Trump administration ultimately provided aid to Ukraine that was authorized by Congress and went further than aid provided by the Obama administration.

Sekulow said that the fact that the aid was ultimately provided without an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens or Burisma undercuts the Democrats’ argument that President Trump held back the money for his own political benefit.

6:39 p.m. House manager Jason Crow argues OMB documents would show President Trump used national defense funds for his political benefit

House manager Jason Crow begins his argument in favor of the amendment to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget by sharing some of his personal history as an Army Ranger serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Crow is in his first term in Congress and served in the 82nd Airborne Division before joining the 75th Ranger Regiment, with which he served two tours in Afghanistan as part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force.

He says the decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine was “personal” to him and that OMB played a key role in the decisions to hold back aid approved by Congress.

“These documents would provide insight into critical aspects of the military-aid hold. They would show the decision-making process and motivations behind President Trump’s freeze. They would reveal the concerns expressed by career OMB officials including lawyers that the hold was violating the law. They would expose the lengths to which OMB went to justify the president’s hold,” he says.

“They would reveal concerns about the impact of the freeze on Ukraine and U.S. national security. They would show senior officials repeatedly attempted to convince President Trump to release the hold. In short, they would show exactly how the president carried out the scheme to use our national defense funds to benefit his personal political campaign,” Crow says.

6:20 p.m. Senate rejects second Democratic amendment, for State Department documents, also along party lines

Schiff appeals directly to the senators sitting silently in the chamber in his argument that they should vote to subpoena the State Department for additional evidence in the impeachment trial.

“You’re going to have 16 hours to ask questions. Sixteen hours — that’s a long time to ask questions. Wouldn’t you like to be able to ask about the documents during those 16 hours?”

Schiff references the “three amigos,” three administration officials who took the lead in the administration’s policy in Ukraine.

Adam Schiff speaks on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.ABC News

Although Ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland both testified as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Schiff pointed out that the third “amigo” – former Energy Secretary Rick Perry – has thus far refused to cooperate with investigators or provide any documents.

“Wouldn’t you like to know? Don’t you think the American people have a right to know what the third Amigo knew about this scheme?” Schiff asks.

McConnell calls for a vote to table Schumer’s second amendment, calling for the Senate to subpoena the State Department for documents related to the administration’s involvement in Ukraine and the decision to withhold military aid. That amendment is tabled — or killed– along party lines, just his first one calling for White House witnesses was rejected.

Schumer then offers a third amendment to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget for documents.

Some color from our reporters inside the chamber watching from above in the press gallery:

During the defense’s statements, the most aggressive Republican note-takers were GOP Sens. Murkowski and Collins (two of the four Republicans we are watching closely). The two women wrote for multiple minutes as White House counsel Pat Cipollone spoke.

A few aides have been walking on and off the floor to deliver notes to members, who for the most part remain quiet and attentive.

Also coming on and off the floor – Senate pages who have been vigorously delivering water glasses to both the House legal team and the members over the last few minutes.

— ABC’s Allison Pecorin

6:05 p.m. Chief Justice John Roberts has to be back at his first job tomorrow morning

Even as it’s unclear how much longer the Senate will go tonight debating Democratic amendments, one of the few people in the chamber who will have to be back at work first thing tomorrow morning — running an entire branch of government — is the chief justice.

The U.S. Capitol building exterior is seen at sunset, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.Sarah Silbiger/Reuters

He’ll preside over oral arguments at the Supreme Court in a major case involving religion and school choice that public school unions say is “crucial” for their funding. That begins at 10 a.m.

The senators and other staff presumably won’t be back in business until midday when the trial’s opening arguments are expected to begin at 1 p.m. and Roberts will need to be back on the Senate dais as presiding officer.

— ABC’s Devin Dwyer

5:20 p.m. Democratic Rep. Val Demings argues Senate must subpoena State Department documents

House manager Val Demings is now making an argument in favor of an amendment to subpoena to State Department for documents related to Ukraine.

Demings, 62, made an impression in questioning witnesses when the testified before both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

Val Demings speaks on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, in Washington, DC.ABC News

Unlike the other House managers, Demings doesn’t have a background as a litigator but she did work in the criminal justice system as the first female police chief in the Orlando Police Department, where she served for 27 years.

A Florida State University and Webster University graduate, Demings is the only member of the managing team without a law degree and the only member with a law enforcement background.

– ABC’s Ben Siegel

Sen. Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters during a brief recess on the first full day of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 21, 2020.Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

4:40 p.m. Senate rejects Schumer amendment calling for a subpoena for White House witnesses and documents

On a party-line vote, 53-47, the Senate votes to put aside — or kill — Schumer’s amendment to subpoena witnesses and documents from the White House.

Schumer proposes a new amendment to subpoena documents from the State Department related to calls between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.

The Senate Chamber as members vote on the amendment offered by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump, Jan. 21, 2020, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.ABC News

There will be another two hours of debate on that amendment. McConnell says he will move to table that amendment as well.

4:14 p.m. Trump’s lawyers argue all the Democrats’ subpoenas have been invalid

Patrick Philbin, one of the lawyers on President Trump’s defense team, pushes back on the Democrats’ argument that the White House refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

He says the White House did respond to subpoena requests with a letter laying out why it saw the subpoenas were invalid – primarily that the House had not voted to authorize an official impeachment inquiry.

“All of those subpoenas were invalid,” he says.

“And that was explained to the House, to manager Schiff and the other chairman of the committees at the time in that October 18th letter. Did the House take any steps to remedy that? Did they try to dispute that? Did they go to court? Did they do anything to resolve that problem? No.”

After Philbin finishes, Schiff speaks again.

“Let’s get this trial started, shall we?” Schiff says in response to the president’s lawyers’ claim that Democrats are pushing for more evidence because the House’s case isn’t strong enough.

“We are ready to present our case. We are ready to call our witnesses. The question is will you let us?” he asks.

As arguments conclude, McConnell makes a motion to put Schumer’s amendment aside.

3:42 p.m. Former GOP Sen. Jeff Flake watches from Senate Gallery

Former Sen. Jeff Flake is in the chamber. He is seated in the upper level that is reserved for staff and guests. He looked over to the press area where reporters are seated and smiled.

The former senator and fierce Trump critic announced in 2017 that he would not seek reelection.

Flake notably has said that if the Senate held a secret ballot to remove Trump from office, more than 30 Republicans would vote to oust him.

3:34 p.m. House manager Zoe Lofgren says documents Democrats want subpoenaed would reveal ‘the truth’

House manager Zoe Lofgren argues Schumer’s amendment to subpoena key evidence from the White House would circumvent President Trump’s efforts to block the House impeachment investigation by refusing to release documents or blocking officials from cooperating.

She says evidence released through Freedom of Information Act requests and messages from Ruddy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas made public after the House impeachment vote show that the White House documents could further implicate the president in wrongdoing concerning the withheld aid to Ukraine.

“The documents include records of the people who may have objected to this scheme, such as Ambassador (John) Bolton. This is an important impeachment case against the president. The most important documents are going to be at the White House. The documents Senator Schumer’s amendment targets would provide clarity and context about president Trump’s scheme,” Lofgren says.

“We don’t know with certainty what the documents will say. We simply want the truth … whatever that truth may be. So, so do the American people. They want to know the truth. And so should everybody in this chamber regardless of our party affiliation,” she adds.

Lofgren points out that multiple witnesses in the House investigation testified they took detailed, handwritten notes around relevant events like the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.

She says documents like those notes would provide a first-hand look at how Trump’s behavior was perceived by those around him at the time.

3:26 p.m. Schiff argues the president’s lawyers didn’t even mention the rules resolution

After the break, Schiff pushes back on accusations from the president’s lawyers that the House impeachment proceedings were unfair and that Republicans and representatives of the president weren’t allowed to participate. He says it is “just plain wrong” to say Republicans weren’t allowed in the depositions with witnesses or that the president wasn’t allowed to send a representative to Judiciary Committee proceedings.

“I’m not going to suggest to you they are being deliberately misleading here, but it is just plain wrong. You have also heard my friends at the other table make attacks on me and chairman Nadler. You will hear more of that. I am not going to do them the dignity of responding to them, but I will say this. They make a very important point, although it’s not the point I think they’re trying to make,” Schiff said.

“When you hear them attack the House managers, what you are really hearing is “we don’t want to talk about the president’s guilt. We don’t want to talk about the McConnell resolution and how patently unfair it is.”

2:55 p.m. Inside the Senate chamber, senators taking notes, exchanging messages

As the Senate took a break, ABC’s Mariam Khan reports senators, for the most part, were sitting quietly at their desks while Cipollone, Sekulow, and Schiff took turns speaking.

Senators seem to be paying close attention, maintaining eye contact with the speakers, and taking notes.

As Schiff spoke about the charges against the president, Trump’s key allies – GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Jim Risch, James Inhofe, and several others, stared stoically ahead.

Moderate GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — who are seated next to each other — are taking copious amounts of notes, their faces expressionless.

While Schiff was speaking, Graham started to look a little bored, shifting in his seat constantly. While senators cannot speak to one another during the proceedings, he scribbled out a note on his legal notepad and shared it with his seatmate, Sen. John Barrasso.

Barrasso read the note, exchanged a knowing look with Graham and the two quietly chuckled.

When Schiff went on about the need for witnesses, Graham appeared to smirk.

When Schiff played a video of Trump saying he wanted to hear from witnesses – Minority Leader Schumer began to grin widely. He looked pleased.

Meanwhile, senators are still getting messages from the outside world. Aides are discreetly walking on to the floor to hand-deliver paper messages to senators. Senate pages are walking around filling up water glasses.

2:39 p.m. President Trump’s lawyers argue the Democrats failed to pursue their case in the courts

President Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow begins his argument by slamming the process in the House impeachment inquiry.

“And what we just heard from manager Schiff, courts have no role, privileges don’t apply, what happened in the past we should just ignore. In fact, manager Schiff just said try to summarize my colleagues’ defense of the president,” Sekulow says.

“He said not in those words of course, which is not the first time Mr. Schiff has put words into transcripts that did not exist. Mr. Schiff also talked about a trifecta,” Sekulow says.

“I’ll give you a trifecta. During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The president was denied the right to access evidence. And the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. This is a trifecta that violates the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Schiff did say the courts really don’t have a role in this. Executive privilege, why would that matter? It matters because it is based on the Constitution of the United States,” Sekulow continues.

The president and his counsel could not participate in person during the depositions that House Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight committees held but once the hearings moved to the House Judiciary Committee, the White House and the president chose not to participate even though they were invited to present a defense.

Pat Cipollone also says that Schiff was keeping Republicans out of the impeachment depositions. That is not true. Republicans on the committees mentioned participated in the depositions.

Sekulow argues that the only reason we are here is because Democrats want the president removed from office.

“What are we dealing with here? Why are we here? Are we here because of a phone call? Or are we before a great body because, since the president was sworn into office, there was a desire to see him removed.”

He says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her impatience and contempt for the proceedings and waiting for the courts to rule when she said: “we cannot be at the mercy of the courts.”

“That is why we have courts … to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude,” he said, although it should be noted that the administration has argued that the courts should not have a role here,” he says.

-ABC’s Katherine Faulders

ABC News Politics@ABCPolitics

2:13 p.m. GOP’s Collins pressed to have arguments take place over 3 — not 2 — days

ABC’s Trish Turner on Capitol Hill reports aides to moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins say she and others raised concerns about trying to fit the 24 hours of opening statements in two days under the proposed rules and the admission of the House transcript of the evidence into the Senate record.

Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible, the aides say. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement, they say.

Later, during a break, a Republican senator – who asked not to be quoted – said the discussion of the tweaks to McConnell resolution was the topic of discussion at the GOP lunch today.

Some of the key senators, like Collins, “were clearly concerned about the topics around which changes were made,” this senator said, reports ABC’s Trish Turner.

”It was clear there was quite a bit of concern,” so it was changed, the senator said.

Sen. Ron Johnson said, “There was pretty strong feeling which is why it got changed,” saying the concern extended even beyond moderate senators. Republicans wanted to take an argument away from Schumer, he said. “We are not trying to hide testimony in the wee hours of the morning.”

2:08 p.m. Trump tweets from Switzerland

President Trump appears to be monitoring the Senate trial from his trip to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, reports ABC’s Elizabeth Thomas.

A few minutes after he left a dinner with Global Chief Executive Officers, the last scheduled event of the day in Davos, Trump tweeted, “READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” — one of his favorite defenses, as he has often said before, referring to his calls with Ukraine’s president — calls which he calls “perfect.”

1:34 p.m. Schiff says Trump is arguing there is nothing Congress can do about his conduct

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff makes his first remarks in Tuesday’s session, speaking on behalf of the House impeachment managers against McConnell’s resolution.

He says Trump is arguing that there is nothing Congress can do about the behavior in question in the trial and the trial won’t be fair if both sides are blocked from introducing new evidence.

“If a president can obstruct his own investigation, if he can effectively nullify a power, the Constitution gives solely to Congress and indeed the ultimate power, the ultimate power the Constitution gives to prevent presidential misconduct, then the president places himself beyond accountability, above the law,” Schiff says.

“It makes him a monarch, the very evil which against our Constitution and the balance of powers the Constitution was laid out to guard against,” he says.

ABC News Politics@ABCPolitics

2:13 p.m. GOP’s Collins pressed to have arguments take place over 3 — not 2 — days

ABC’s Trish Turner on Capitol Hill reports aides to moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins say she and others raised concerns about trying to fit the 24 hours of opening statements in two days under the proposed rules and the admission of the House transcript of the evidence into the Senate record.

Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible, the aides say. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement, they say.

Later, during a break, a Republican senator – who asked not to be quoted – said the discussion of the tweaks to McConnell resolution was the topic of discussion at the GOP lunch today.

Some of the key senators, like Collins, “were clearly concerned about the topics around which changes were made,” this senator said, reports ABC’s Trish Turner.

”It was clear there was quite a bit of concern,” so it was changed, the senator said.

Sen. Ron Johnson said, “There was pretty strong feeling which is why it got changed,” saying the concern extended even beyond moderate senators. Republicans wanted to take an argument away from Schumer, he said. “We are not trying to hide testimony in the wee hours of the morning.”

2:08 p.m. Trump tweets from Switzerland

President Trump appears to be monitoring the Senate trial from his trip to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, reports ABC’s Elizabeth Thomas.

A few minutes after he left a dinner with Global Chief Executive Officers, the last scheduled event of the day in Davos, Trump tweeted, “READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” — one of his favorite defenses, as he has often said before, referring to his calls with Ukraine’s president — calls which he calls “perfect.”

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The post Trump impeachment trial: Senate rejects Democrats’ effort to subpoena witnesses, documents first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away,” the legal filing said. “The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.”

“The articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face,” the seven-page filing continued.

The legal paperwork is the first formal response to the two articles of impeachment read in the Senate on Thursday for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

PELOSI GLOATS: TRUMP HAS BEEN IMPEACHED ‘FOREVER’

Trump’s lawyers argued that the articles of impeachment “violate the Constitution” and are “defective in their entirety” because they were the product of invalid House proceedings that “flagrantly denied the President any due process rights.”

At the crux of Trump’s defense is that he did nothing wrong in his July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine when he asked for investigations into Democrats. The White House argues that military aid to Ukraine was ultimately released without any announcement of investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The lawyers contend House Democrats fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone, high crimes or misdemeanors.

“In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned against, to ensure one-party political impeachment vendettas do not become the ‘new normal,’ and to vindicate the will of the American people, the Senate must reject both Articles of Impeachment,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.”

The response is the first of many expected in the coming days from Trump’s growing legal team as they battle to acquit the commander in chief in the Senate impeachment trial.

The House impeachment managers released their opening trial briefing Saturday evening, and Trump’s lawyers will give their response by Monday at noon.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS URGE SENATE TO ‘ELIMINATE THE THREAT’ OF TRUMP, IN OPENING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SALVO

Adding to the Democrats’ case is a legal opinion Thursday from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which found that the Trump administration broke the law by withholding defense aid to Ukraine. But a source close to Trump’s legal team rejected the findings and accused the GAO of trying to insert itself into the impeachment “news cycle.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The third presidential impeachment trial formally began Thursday when Chief Justice John Roberts swore in the senators and each signed an “oath book” to cement their role as impartial jurors.

The trial will kick off in earnest Tuesday when House impeachment managers will prosecute the case and Trump’s lawyers will offer a robust defense over a period of days.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lawyers-respond-impeachment-articles

The post Trump lawyers respond to articles of impeachment: ‘Constitutionally invalid’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!” Trump tweeted minutes after the court’s decision was made public.

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. The decision upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued were needed for security reasons.

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration’s policy affecting visitors from five Muslim majority nations—known as travel ban 3.0—discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion in issuing immigrant visas.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority” under federal law.

The court’s decision offered a narrow endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration.

While the policy was upheld, the justices sent the case back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

The White House released an official statement from the president calling the decision a “tremendous victory.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States,” Trump said in the official statement. “In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country.”

The president also said that the ruling was a “moment of profound vindication” after months of “hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians.”

“As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens,” Trump said. “Our country will always be safe, secure and protected on my watch.”

The countries affected in Travel Ban 3.0 involved mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information sharing.

A lawyer fighting the policy, Neal Katyal, said in a statement that “the final chapter has not yet been written.”

“The president would be mistaken to interpret today’s decision as a greenlight to continue his unwise and un-American policies,” Katyal said in a statement to Fox News Tuesday. “As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, not everything that is constitutional is good policy. The travel ban is atrocious policy, and makes us less safe and undermines our American ideals.”

He added: “Now that the Court has upheld it, it is up to Congress to do its job and reverse President Trump’s unilateral and unwise travel ban.”

Fox News’ Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The post Trump cheers travel ban win before Supreme Court: ‘Wow!’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.