US Court partially lifts Trump travel ban injunction

US Court partially lifts Trump travel ban injunction

In the unsigned opinion, the court said that a foreign national who wants to visit or live with a family member would have such a relationship, and so would students from the designated countries – Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – who were admitted to a USA university.

“It is still unclear if a national from one of the banned countries will get a visa to visit a family member, participate in a conference, visit schools or come for a job interview”, Jafri said.

Jeremy McKinney, a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s executive committee, told The Independent that a majority of the ban’s implementation will take place at consular posts outside of the U.S. and at pre-inspection sites at global airports inside and outside the country.

Refugees will face similar criteria, with anyone lacking connections in the USA denied entry.

The decision by the nation’s highest court to examine the travel ban in full in October this year could put the embattled measure on a path to final resolution.

The justices tried Monday to give some immediate clarity to US policy until it rules in two cases presenting broader challenges to the travel ban as an unconstitutional discrimination against religion because it unfairly targets Muslims. “I also am particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0″, he said.

“As a nation, our diversity is our greatest strength, and we can not allow such prejudice to shut the doors of progress”. The caveat: the executive order can not be applied (at least for now) to foreign nationals who have a “bonafide” relationship with a person (i.e. a family member) or entity (i.e. a university) within the United States. He said in a statement that his “number one responsibility” is to keep Americans safe.

“The government is reviewing the decision and determining how to proceed going forward”, said White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

Lower courts had said Trump overstepped his authority and unconstitutionally targeted Muslims.

The court’s opinion further explained the kinds of relationships people from the six countries must demonstrate to obtain a U.S. visa.

A decision joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor sets a new standard for which nationals from the six countries named in Mr. Trump’s executive order will be allowed in the country while the administration devises its new “extreme vetting” procedures.

In its unsigned opinion, the court made clear that the president has broad powers to act in the interest of national security. The initial version caused chaos at airports across the country until it was blocked by a federal judge in Washington state, prompting the administration to craft a revised version that omitted references to religion and specifically exempted green card holders. And while his lawyers in court described the action as a temporary pause in immigration, and administration officials corrected reporters who called it a travel ban, Trump did not agree. But in order to decide if the lower court injunctions were appropriate, they had to weigh the probable impact of the order and the likelihood that the legal challenges would succeed.

The onus now falls on U.S. Customs and Border Protection to implement the parts of the travel ban that are effective.

While the ban did not single out Muslims, lower court judges cited Trump’s repeated campaign statements that he meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States. But that argument did not prevail. Trump has said the order is needed for national security. “And it is a big victory for our nation’s security, President Trump, and the rule of the law.” he said in a statement.

Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died.