Supreme Court reinstates most of Trump travel ban

Supreme Court reinstates most of Trump travel ban

The travel ban – which was put on hold by lower court rulings – will apply to those “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States“, until the court hears the case in October, the justices ruled.

Mr Trump seeks to place a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.

A federal judge blocked it eight days later, and that was upheld by a 9th circuit panel.

The ban at issue is President Trump’s second effort to ban Muslims from countries he has proclaimed to be unsafe. “The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down”.

The court is expected to decide within days whether the Trump administration can enforce a ban on visitors to the USA from six mostly Muslim countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground.

Saying the petitions and injunctions “are accordingly ripe for consideration”, the Supreme Court said on Monday that the two cases will be consolidated.

“If [Trump] wants to call it a victory in order to back off and walk away from this, I’m happy for him to call it a victory”, said Justin Cox, an attorney representing International Refugee Assistance Project in the Supreme Court case.

“My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe”.

The revised travel ban, issued in March, blocks most new immigrants from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, “the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the objective of evading” the travel ban.

The court also agreed to hear the case involving travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries and all refugees in the early fall, leaving open the chance that it could reverse Monday’s verdict if challengers can prove the ban is illegal or unconstitutional. “The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to (the Supreme Court)”.

The six countries whose residents are now on the U.S.no-entrance list are: Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member … clearly has such a relationship.

Two years to the day after the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the court announced it will decide whether a Denver baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

The justices granted parts of the Administration’s emergency request to restore the travel ban immediately while the legal battle continues.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch felt the partial reinforcement of the travel ban did not go far enough, according to a separate opinion written by Thomas and joined by Alito and Gorsuch. And the sum total is still that part of Trump’s ban remains blocked, with no ruling on the overall constitutionality and the possibility that it gets partially struck down for good. The revised order also jettisoned language that gave preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, which critics said could be taken as favoring Christians and other religious groups over Muslims.