Supreme Court Unanimously Allows for Partial Implementation Travel Ban

Supreme Court Unanimously Allows for Partial Implementation Travel Ban

The Supreme Court will let the Trump administration enforce a 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it, and throwing the travel industry back into a fray that delayed and stranded travelers earlier this year.

The ruling would remain in force until the court hears the case in full in October.

Others who work with immigrants say they’re anxious that people arriving on tourist visas to visit family may be held up if they can not prove they’re visiting a relative. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive”, Trump added.

He said the ban will likely only affect a small portion of visa-seekers from the six countries from which the administration wants to ban travel – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The lower courts, however, tossed decades of legal jurisprudence out the window and replaced it with a creative new standard: they analyzed Trump’s past campaign statements and his tweets, found them to indicate an animus towards Muslims, and then concluded that the order was thus unconstitutional, all the while ignoring its actual legal merits. “This should make clear to the world that the United States continues to welcome the most talented individuals from all countries to study, teach, and carry out research and scholarship at our universities”.

IN ANNOUNCING it would review President Trump’s ban on refugees and travelers from six mainly Muslim countries this fall, the Supreme Court on Monday struck a cautious interim compromise. “They basically have ignored the anti-Muslim premise or anti-Muslim bias behind the ban to begin with so we find this to be very troubling”.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the administration was confident that it would prevail when the nation’s top judges hear the case in full.

The travel ban is back on in theory, but in practice it will block only a small sliver of the people who seek to come to the United States from those countries, a lot of them refugees. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could.

The government argued that a 90-day pause on entry of travellers from six mostly Muslim countries “is necessary to prevent potentially risky individuals from entering the United States” as the administration reviews gaps in the government’s screening and vetting procedures for visa applicants and refugees.

The court said that the travel ban will go into effect,”with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationships with a person or entity in the United States”.

“Like all countries, US authorities have the final decision as to who enters their territory”.

The court tempered its ruling by saying the ban could not be implemented for now against people who have personal links to the United States, citing the examples of foreign nationals wishing to visit family or students accepted to attend a university.

Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts. So far, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees C.B.P., has said little about how it plans to implement the new terms of the order.

The revised ban does not apply to legal permanent residents and those with current valid visas, but legal experts said it will apply to those who have yet to apply for entry to the U.S.

Chin said Monday that means University of Hawaii students and family members of USA citizens may still enter the country. “I am committed to defending the President’s ability to exercise that responsibility and the Department of Justice is confident that the United States Supreme Court will uphold this constitutional and necessary executive order“.

The imam of a Hawaii mosque who is a plaintiff in the state’s challenge to the travel ban says he hopes his Syrian mother-in-law will be granted a visa.

At least five votes were needed to reinstate the ban in part, and at least four votes were needed to hear the government’s appeal.