Ruling in travel ban leaves myriad questions unanswered

Ruling in travel ban leaves myriad questions unanswered

“The government’s interest in enforcing [the ban], and the executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States”, the court said in their ruling, adding that it “may not be enforced” against those who have a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship” within the US, according to USA Today.

When the Trump administration rolled out the President’s first executive order in January, bedlam ensued nearly immediately as foreigners from seven predominately Muslim countries tried to enter the United States, only to be turned away at the border or separated from loved ones overseas. The court said a “close familial relationship is required”.

Most people with visas looking to travel from the affected countries to the US who wish to bypass the partially-reinstated restrictions would need to demonstrate a connection to either an organization or an individual in order to be allowed entry.

– A student who has been admitted to study at an American university.

The US Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory. The effect on refugees could be greater because they are less likely to have family, school or business relationships in the United States.

Berks reacts to Supreme Court ‘s. Also, the government said last week the ban would go into effect 72 hours after the Supreme Court ruling – which would be Thursday morning in Washington.

Federal courts said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion”, the court wrote.

The dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch argued the travel ban should be fully implemented. 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. Soon after, several federal judges struck it down and the ban had been halted.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment on precise timing or a detailed roll-out plan, but said in a statement Monday that implementation will be done with “clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers”.

Matt Adams, legal director of the Seattle-based Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which filed one of many lawsuits against the policy, said he still expects some confusion at airports, at least initially. “What’s more hard is if you’re coming in on a tourist visa”.

“How can you filter certain people and say, because we are going to prevent terrorists, we have terrorists here”, said Elmarzouky.

What next from the left: demands that the Supreme Court be impeached?

The early indications are that the administration will use the decision to take a tough line on travelers from those countries. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could. The Supreme Court has asked for more arguments about whether the challenges to the travel restriction became moot in June.