Supreme Court Allows Trump To Partially Enforce His Travel And Refugee Ban

Supreme Court Allows Trump To Partially Enforce His Travel And Refugee Ban

Trump, who had predicted he would triumph at the Supreme Court, hailed the court’s decision as a “clear victory for our national security“.

The Courts order is now seem to be a victory for Trump administration.

Catholic Community Services of Utah, which runs one of two primary refugee resettlement agencies in the state, described the ruling as blow to the United States’ national identity.

Trump revised the order, removing Iraq from the list of countries subject to the ban – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria – after its government took specific steps to assuage the Trump administration’s concerns, including agreeing to quickly repatriate Iraqis who overstay their USA visas and increasing information about its citizens that it shares with the U.S. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Mr. Trump’s nominee who was confirmed in April, took part in the highest-profile issue yet in his three months on the court.

We accordingly grant the Government’s stay applications in part and narrow the scope of the injunctions as to ยง2 (c). The justices said that the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States“.

Following opposition in state courts blocking its March 6 executive order, the law will now forbid the entry of people who do not have demonstrable relationships – family or employment – in USA territory.

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. Thomas said he had concerns that the court’s solution would prove unworkable.

Bashir Khan, a Winnipeg immigration lawyer representing numerous asylum seekers who came to Canada from the United States earlier this year, said he doubted the court ruling would drive more people to jump the border. He said it’s unclear whether the individual seeking entry or the government will have to provide the proof about the bona fides.

Banning people who live in countries that are havens for terrorism from coming to the US only makes sense. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. But they said they are anxious about other immigrants, including refugees who may be desperate for help but lack USA relations.

“The court went out of its way to not tip its hand as to how it will rule on the ultimate issue, which is whether the president has the power to do this”.

The hard job of judging foreigners’ claimed connections could land back in the lower courts in Maryland and Hawaii that had originally blocked Trump’s travel ban, said Stephen Vladeck, a professor University of Texas School of Law.

Just this month, an appeals court upheld an injunction on the bans and quoted in its decision a Trump tweet from the previous week, which read, “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain risky countries, not some political correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.

He added, “Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland”. Trump signed the order as a replacement for a January 27 order issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts.

The Supreme Court is letting much of President Donald Trump’s travel ban take effect.

And the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which challenged the executive order in court, said it would monitor the enforcement of the ban to ensure border guards are not excluding anyone who has a connection to the United States. The fresh uncertainty may force lower-court judges to again weigh in on the immigration fight just as aspiring visitors, immigrants and refugees believed the dispute was winding its way toward a conclusion.

Hawaii sued to stop the revised travel ban in March.

“Like all countries, USA authorities have the final decision as to who enters their territory”. Fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have a connection to the United States and those who do not will prove unworkable.

If Trump doesn’t attempt to keep the travel ban alive after the 90-day period, the case could be moot before the Supreme Court hears it on the merits in the fall.