Ruling in travel ban leaves many questions unanswered

Ruling in travel ban leaves many questions unanswered

The Supreme Court announced June 26 the reinstatement of part of Trump’s controversial travel ban on citizens from six majority-Muslim countries, according to The Inquistr.

It was a legal win for the administration — to an extent.


What qualifies as a “bona fide” connection?

The justices will hear full arguments in October in the case. They said relatively few people would fall under the ban because people coming to study, work or visit family members in the United States already have sufficient relationships with others already is in the country.

If an immigrant from any one of the countries articulated by the president in the order has a legal relationship with a person, school, business or other entity in the USA, they will not be banned. For individuals, a close family relationship is required: A spouse or a mother-in-law would be permitted.

Trump’s revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar from United States entry travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days.

The State Department says after the 50,000 refugee cap is reached, new people hoping to come to the us may be required to show a “bona fide” relationship with someone or some entity in the United States. Only after that, it said, will additional details on the implementation be provided.

A federal judge in Seattle blocked the order a week later, and Trump eventually revised it, dropping Iraq from the list and including reasons people might be exempted, such as a need for medical treatment.

It’s expected there will be more lawsuits in the wake of this latest ruling.

The State Department vowed to keep travelers and travel industry partners informed as it implements the order, and to keep the US Refugee Admissions Program “apprised of changes as they take effect”.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision came a day before it ended its current term.

The Republican governor opposed the original ban and says he still is concerned about the effect of the limited version on refugee populations and others seeking asylum. Eventually, people likely will be barred from boarding planes to the US, he said. But by then, a key provision may have expired, possibly making the review unnecessary. Still, the fact that the executive branch itself provided evidence to Congress that clearly indicated that those six countries are not the primary source of terrorist threats clearly undercuts this particular use of that authority.

Three of the court’s conservative justices said they would have let the complete bans take effect.

The US leader has suffered a series of judicial defeats over the ban, with two federal appeals courts maintaining injunctions on it by arguing that his executive order discriminated against travelers based on their nationality.

“We see the 9-0 decision with zero dissensions as a slap in the face to those that would use the courts with a political agenda to undermine the security of USA citizens”, Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka told KTAR News 92.3 FM’s Arizona’s Morning News on Tuesday.

“The underlying issue of presidential power is too important and too likely to occur in the future”, he said.