Trump travel ban ruling creates questions for refugees

Trump travel ban ruling creates questions for refugees

The Supreme Court yesterday granted the Trump administration’s petition for certiorari to hear its appeal of the two court decisions putting on hold the travel ban that would suspend foreign nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) from entering into the United States for a period of 90 days, reported politics-focused newspaper The Hill on Monday.

The prominent global human rights group urged the US Congress on Monday to nullify the top court’s ruling that allows Trump’s executive order to take effect until it hears arguments on the travel ban in October. Although the justices partially lifted lower courts’ injunctions on Trump’s ban, they said they would take up the case fully in their October term.

“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security”, he said in a White House statement released by the White House.

Dershowitz, who said he does not support Trump’s order as a matter of policy, predicted SCOTUS will “generally support” the president’s broad authority to control immigration into the US with exceptions similar to the ones the court carved out yesterday for people with “credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with people or organizations in the country. In EO-2, President Trump determined that the temporary travel ban of nationals from these six countries was necessary to ensure that risky individuals did not enter the United States while the United States developed “adequate standards” for applicants who are seeking visas to enter the United States.

Trump issued the order amid rising global concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. The president has denied that the ban targets Muslims but says it is needed “to protect the nation from terrorist activities” committed by citizens of the six countries. Ahmed al-Nasi, an official in Yemen’s Ministry of Expatriate Affairs, voiced disappointment.

“We are somewhere near 49,000”, Nauert said Tuesday. Trump’s initial travel ban, issued without warning on a Friday in January, brought chaos and protests to airports nationwide as travelers from seven targeted countries were barred even if they had prior permission to come to the U.S. The State Department canceled up to 60,000 visas but later reversed that decision. Opponents reject that and argue it’s a backdoor way to bar Muslims from entering the United States, as Trump promised in his campaign.

However, the justices said the ban on travel can not be enforced against “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States“. Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, who successfully challenged the ban in lower courts, said that students from affected countries due to attend the University of Hawaii would still be able to do so. Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion that the travel ban should have been allowed to take effect in full, but the others clearly have reservations or they wouldn’t have added the weird exceptions. Trump cited national security concerns as the reason for the order. The order said these steps were necessary in order to revise security screening to safeguard the nation from external threats.

This case shows a major test of the presidential power, the justices in their granted parts of the Trump administration’s emergency request to put the order into effect in their unspecified decision, despite the fact that the legal battle continues.

“As President, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm”.

Trump’s order also slashed the cap on annual refugee arrivals from more than 100,000 to 50,000, though a State Department memo last month announced the resettlement program will be funded for 75,000 arrivals. Since the Republican party has lined up behind him, the courts are the only recourse. The four liberal justices were silent.

At least three justices agreed the standard used by the court will prove “unworkable” in practice and invite a “flood of litigation” over the summer as “courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship’”.