On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) partially lifted the injunction and agreed to hear arguments on President Trump’s March 6, 2017 executive order entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (the “Order”).
After Trump’s original January 27 executive order, several states, including Hawaii, sued in federal court and got it blocked, prompting the administration to craft a new order in March that included changes – such as dropping Iraq from the list of nations – aimed at allowing the measure to pass muster in the courts.
The ban applies to foreign nationals from Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen. The order allows for case-by-case exceptions. “The president has broad authority to control our borders and individuals who have no contact with the United States, say a farmer from Yemen who wants to come and go to Disneyland, there is no right that he has to do that”. The court lifted the lower courts’ injunctions and allowed the order’s travel ban to go into effect “against foreign nationals overseas who have no connection to the United States at all”.
Employers with traveling employees seem to be exempt by the partial injunction.
President Donald Trump’s cap of 50,000 refugees allowed into the USA for 2017 is likely to be hit within the next week or so, Department of State spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters Tuesday. But the Ninth Circuit explicitly held that it did not need to resolve the Establishment Clause issue because Trump had exceeded his authority under immigration statutory law to make decisions about national security and had not offered “sufficient justification” for his order.
Transit refugees or those who already have a permit may travel to the United States under this executive order.
“Second, it puts real doubt once again on the 9th Circuit Court”. The Supreme Court noted that no foreign national has any right to admission into this country for any reason. On that same day, a federal court in Maryland published a decision to block the Order’s 90-day suspension.
The court, narrowing down the judgments of lower courts that have completely blocked its executive order since March 6, said it will open a hearing in October on the legality of this most important Trump decision in the first months of his presidency.
Thomas Ascik is an attorney in North Carolina.