Top US court partially upholds Trump’s travel bans

Top US court partially upholds Trump’s travel bans

That was immediately contested by immigrant rights and civil liberties groups challenging the travel ban, who argued that most would-be travelers can not be barred under the court’s compromise ruling.

Bend the Arc: Jewish Action sharply criticized the stay that would allow parts of the ban to be enforced, calling it “a deeply harmful decision“.

Apparently, all nine justices-conservative, moderate, and liberal-were able to come to a consensus on the Justice Department’s appeal: that, as chief executive, President Trump can be granted some room to implement the travel ban, which temporarily prohibits immigrants and refugees from six specific Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The justices also allowed a limited version of the 120-day refugee ban to go into effect.

The New York Immigration Coalition, another fierce opponent, said the ruling created more confusion by referring to “bona fide relationship” which “agencies and individuals will struggle to make sense of”.

Denying entry to a person that does not have a relationship to a person or entity in the United States “does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national”.

When will it come into effect?

David French of the (not exactly Trump-friendly) National Review wrote: “Victory for Trump: SCOTUS Restores Vast Majority of Travel Ban”. So, why is it still needed?

Despite the president’s claim, the Supreme Court added a significant exception to Trump’s second attempt at travel ban – which the president had already called a “watered-down” version of his original.

With that in mind, I present the White House’s gloating after the Supreme Court partially reinstated its travel ban on Monday.

But the court said the injunctions were too broad to also include barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all.

In the beginning of March, President Trump proposed a new travel ban in which Iraq was excluded. Within days, federal judges in NY and Boston intervened, and a third federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide injunction in early February. A major issue may well be who has standing to challenge the ban.

While #SCOTUS leaves much of travel ban blocked, I’m troubled that some parts of @POTUS discriminatory order will go into effect.

Gorsuch was one of the three conservative justices who would have granted Trump’s request to put the order completely into effect.

What has Trump said?

“I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0″. We must keep America SAFE!

The decision endorsed the Trump administration’s contention that the president deserves greater deference from the courts on national security matters. Kennedy might see the need to help shepherd in a resolution to the complicated case concerning the role of the executive when the court hears the full case this fall.

What has the reaction been?

Interestingly, though, the American Civil Liberties Union reacted to the ruling with optimism and defiance.

The earliest the administration can begin enforcing the portions of the travel ban allowed by the Supreme Court is Thursday. That means students and lecturers coming to the US for their studies, workers employed by American companies, and people coming to visit family will not be impacted by the executive order.