Trump opponents urge U.S. Supreme Court to rule on travel banWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Challengers to President Donald Trump’s travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the policy’s legality even though it has been replaced with a revised plan. In separate letters to the court, the American Civil Liberties Union and the state of Hawaii said the justices  should still hear the case, which had been scheduled for arguments next week but was taken off their calendar after the administration announced the reworked ban last month. The challengers, characterizing the new ban as an indefinite extension of the previous one, said individuals who sued have an interest in the expired measure being declared unlawful because they continue to be harmed by the new policy.  Hawaii also told the court in a separate letter that it intended to challenge Trump’s latest travel ban by seeking on Friday to amend its existing lawsuit against the previous one. The Justice Department urged the justices not to hear the case, to throw out earlier lower court rulings that had invalidated the ban and to order that the legal challenges be dismissed. Trump’s three successive moves to block entry into the United States by people from several predominantly Muslim countries have been among his most contentious acts since taking office in January. Trump had promised as a candidate “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”  The ACLU told the court that the plaintiffs who sued to stop the policy “retain an all-too-real stake in the outcome of the case” even though the original 90-day travel ban on people from six countries expired on Sept. 24. That order was signed by Trump in March and was enacted with some changes in June with the high court’s blessing. The justices on Sept. 25 asked all the parties to file court papers expressing views on whether the case was moot, meaning there was nothing left to decide, because the temporary ban expired. That ban had targeted people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. The new open-ended ban announced in a presidential proclamation on Sept. 24 removed Sudan from the list and blocked people from Chad and North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela from entering the United States. Among the issues raised by the challengers is whether the ban discriminated against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring a particular religion. A separate 120-day ban on refugees entering the United States that was part of Trump’s March order expires on Oct. 24. Hawaii’s lawyers said that even if the high court decided not to issue a ruling, it should still leave the lower court decisions in place. To do otherwise would allow the administration to effectively win the case by erasing rulings that had gone against Trump, Hawaii argued. The Justice Department said that it wants the lower court rulings tossed because the challengers will otherwise cite them in new litigation against Trump’s reworked ban. “The lower courts should be considering challenges to the proclamation anew based on its text, operation, and findings,” Justice Department lawyers wrote. The weekly behind-closed-doors meeting in which the justices consider next steps in cases before them is scheduled for Friday morning. The court could make an announcement at any time. The new ban could affect tens of thousands of potential immigrants and visitors to the United States. Opponents have said that like the earlier two orders from January and March, it was still effectively a “Muslim ban.”  Even if the Supreme Court dismissed the older case, it may still have to weigh in on the issue in the future. Various challengers have filed suit against the reworked ban, and those cases potentially could reach the high court. politicsNews
trump opponents urge supreme court rule travel banwashington reuters challengers president donald trump travel ban targeting several countries thursday urged supreme court decide policy legality even though replaced revised plan in separate letters court american civil liberties union state hawaii said justices still hear case scheduled arguments next week taken calendar administration announced reworked ban last month the challengers characterizing new ban indefinite extension previous one said individuals sued interest expired measure declared unlawful continue harmed new policy hawaii also told court separate letter intended challenge trump latest travel ban seeking friday amend existing lawsuit previous one the justice department urged justices hear case throw earlier lower court rulings invalidated ban order legal challenges dismissed trump three successive moves block entry united states people several predominantly muslim countries among contentious acts since taking office january trump promised candidate total complete shutdown muslims entering united the actu told court plaintiffs sued stop policy retain stake outcome case even though original travel ban people six countries expired that order signed trump march enacted changes june high court blessing the justices asked parties file court papers expressing views whether case moot meaning nothing left decide temporary ban expired that ban targeted people iran libya syria yemen somalia sudan the new ban announced presidential proclamation removed sudan list blocked people chad north korea certain government officials venezuela entering united states among issues raised challengers whether ban discriminated muslims violation constitution prohibition government favoring disfavoring particular religion a separate ban refugees entering united states part trump march order expires hawaii lawyers said even high court decided issue ruling still leave lower court decisions place to otherwise would allow administration effectively win case erasing rulings gone trump hawaii argued the justice department said wants lower court rulings tossed challengers otherwise cite new litigation trump reworked ban the lower courts considering challenges proclamation anew based text operation findings justice department lawyers wrote the weekly meeting justices consider next steps cases scheduled friday morning the court could make announcement time the new ban could affect tens thousands potential immigrants visitors united states opponents said like earlier two orders january march still effectively muslim even supreme court dismissed older case may still weigh issue future various challengers filed suit reworked ban cases potentially could reach high court politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Trump opponents urge U.S. Supreme Court to rule on travel banWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Challengers to President Donald Trump’s travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the policy’s legality even though it has been replaced with a revised plan. In separate letters to the court, the American Civil Liberties Union and the state of Hawaii said the justices  should still hear the case, which had been scheduled for arguments next week but was taken off their calendar after the administration announced the reworked ban last month. The challengers, characterizing the new ban as an indefinite extension of the previous one, said individuals who sued have an interest in the expired measure being declared unlawful because they continue to be harmed by the new policy.  Hawaii also told the court in a separate letter that it intended to challenge Trump’s latest travel ban by seeking on Friday to amend its existing lawsuit against the previous one. The Justice Department urged the justices not to hear the case, to throw out earlier lower court rulings that had invalidated the ban and to order that the legal challenges be dismissed. Trump’s three successive moves to block entry into the United States by people from several predominantly Muslim countries have been among his most contentious acts since taking office in January. Trump had promised as a candidate “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”  The ACLU told the court that the plaintiffs who sued to stop the policy “retain an all-too-real stake in the outcome of the case” even though the original 90-day travel ban on people from six countries expired on Sept. 24. That order was signed by Trump in March and was enacted with some changes in June with the high court’s blessing. The justices on Sept. 25 asked all the parties to file court papers expressing views on whether the case was moot, meaning there was nothing left to decide, because the temporary ban expired. That ban had targeted people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. The new open-ended ban announced in a presidential proclamation on Sept. 24 removed Sudan from the list and blocked people from Chad and North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela from entering the United States. Among the issues raised by the challengers is whether the ban discriminated against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring a particular religion. A separate 120-day ban on refugees entering the United States that was part of Trump’s March order expires on Oct. 24. Hawaii’s lawyers said that even if the high court decided not to issue a ruling, it should still leave the lower court decisions in place. To do otherwise would allow the administration to effectively win the case by erasing rulings that had gone against Trump, Hawaii argued. The Justice Department said that it wants the lower court rulings tossed because the challengers will otherwise cite them in new litigation against Trump’s reworked ban. “The lower courts should be considering challenges to the proclamation anew based on its text, operation, and findings,” Justice Department lawyers wrote. The weekly behind-closed-doors meeting in which the justices consider next steps in cases before them is scheduled for Friday morning. The court could make an announcement at any time. The new ban could affect tens of thousands of potential immigrants and visitors to the United States. Opponents have said that like the earlier two orders from January and March, it was still effectively a “Muslim ban.”  Even if the Supreme Court dismissed the older case, it may still have to weigh in on the issue in the future. Various challengers have filed suit against the reworked ban, and those cases potentially could reach the high court. politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: trump opponents urge supreme court rule travel banwashington reuters challengers president donald trump travel ban targeting several countries thursday urged supreme court decide policy legality even though replaced revised plan in separate letters court american civil liberties union state hawaii said justices still hear case scheduled arguments next week taken calendar administration announced reworked ban last month the challengers characterizing new ban indefinite extension previous one said individuals sued interest expired measure declared unlawful continue harmed new policy hawaii also told court separate letter intended challenge trump latest travel ban seeking friday amend existing lawsuit previous one the justice department urged justices hear case throw earlier lower court rulings invalidated ban order legal challenges dismissed trump three successive moves block entry united states people several predominantly muslim countries among contentious acts since taking office january trump promised candidate total complete shutdown muslims entering united the actu told court plaintiffs sued stop policy retain stake outcome case even though original travel ban people six countries expired that order signed trump march enacted changes june high court blessing the justices asked parties file court papers expressing views whether case moot meaning nothing left decide temporary ban expired that ban targeted people iran libya syria yemen somalia sudan the new ban announced presidential proclamation removed sudan list blocked people chad north korea certain government officials venezuela entering united states among issues raised challengers whether ban discriminated muslims violation constitution prohibition government favoring disfavoring particular religion a separate ban refugees entering united states part trump march order expires hawaii lawyers said even high court decided issue ruling still leave lower court decisions place to otherwise would allow administration effectively win case erasing rulings gone trump hawaii argued the justice department said wants lower court rulings tossed challengers otherwise cite new litigation trump reworked ban the lower courts considering challenges proclamation anew based text operation findings justice department lawyers wrote the weekly meeting justices consider next steps cases scheduled friday morning the court could make announcement time the new ban could affect tens thousands potential immigrants visitors united states opponents said like earlier two orders january march still effectively muslim even supreme court dismissed older case may still weigh issue future various challengers filed suit reworked ban cases potentially could reach high court politicsnews