Can the decision of the court on the travel ban have collateral consequences?


It was a very interesting discussion last evening, on FoxNews, between Tucker and a liberal lawyer, about the court decision on the travel ban. And the most important point in the judges decision was weather the constitution and some court procedural rights apply to alien people who get a visa to come to USA, before they enter the country. And the lawyer stated that yes those people have those rights. Then Tucker asked what if people from Iraq or Syria, having a valid visa, sue the government for damages caused by bombings. And the lawyer said is an overreach and court ruling applies only to immigrants.

I think you already knew this but I repeated it to have it up front.

The thing is that those people with lost property because of the bombings are already in USA as refugees. And the constitution apply for them before they entered usa.
Doesn’t that mean that refugees can sue the government for damages without being an overreach ? If yes probably there are already lawyers working on this…


That anybody is covered by the USCON when bodily outside the country is news to me.

I was always taught that the USCON ended at the land borders or the oceanic coasts and, whether a citizen or not, you were protected by it while within those limits, but outside you were on your own.



Definitely not. I’m not a scholar that can explain the reach and limits of the various principles in play, but I can give an example.

Very early in the republic, the Logan Act was passed forbidding citizens from negotiating with foreign governments (and thereby undercutting the US government or confusing matters). The 5th Congress obviously thought its powers could extend to Paris and prevent a repeat of George Logan’s negotiations with the French government.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit