Supreme Court Revives Trump Travel Ban

Supreme Court Revives Trump Travel Ban

The nine justices, who will hear arguments in the case in October, said the ban could now be enforced for travelers from the targeted countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”.

Civil rights and pro-immigration groups have objected to the order as being unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims. Refugees “in transit” and already approved would have been able to travel to the United States under the executive order.

Thus, the decision will allow the 120-day ban on refugees to be implemented, given that those people are – by definition – fleeing their countries of origin and have no prior relationship with USA individuals or institutions. That review should be complete before October 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.

The ban will have run its course by then, raising a question of whether the justices will even issue a decision in the case or dismiss it because it has been overtaken by events. But this court based its ruling on statuary grounds, saying Trump had exceeded his lawful authority. Refugees from these countries would be denied entry for a period of 120 days.

Both bans were to partly go into effect 72 hours after the court’s decision. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing on behalf of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, said the entire travel order should be implemented because the partial implementation is not enforceable.

The ruling was also met with a chorus of bravos from Trump supporters who say it will make America safer, with additional vetting of who gets in and who doesn’t.

Trump’s administration’s implementation plans, largely orchestrated by White House adviser Stephen Miller, focus on refusing entry to people who are unable to show a substantial and pre-existing tie to a person or institution in the United States.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to disclose the information. The administration has revised its travel ban to exclude legal residents and visa holders. “The majority of visa categories already require noncitizens hoping to enter the have documented connections to the country”.

It’s unclear what will ultimately constitute a “bona fide relationship“, though the ruling suggested that an American job, school enrolment or a close relative could meet that threshold.

Two federal appeals courts had upheld injunctions of varying degrees of severity. At that time, the court could endorse its current view of the travel ban or it could do something different.

“We will keep those traveling to the United States and partners in the travel industry informed as we implement the order in a professional, organized, and timely way”, she said in a news release issued Monday.

“Second, it puts real doubt once again on the 9th Circuit Court”. The travel ban also caps the number of refugees allowed to enter the 50,000 a year.

The other basic portion of Trump’s initiative, which will remain partially blocked, will be the prohibition on U.S. entry to citizens of Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Libya, although entry will be allowed for people from those countries who have relatives or job contracts in the US. A federal court blocked it about a week later. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy. Trump has called the March order a “water down, politically correct” version of the January one.