The travel ban ruling is winning praise from the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento.
Confusion abounded about exactly how travelers from six Muslim-majority nations could prove a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the USA, exempting them from the ban. In the meantime, the court issued a decision to partially uphold the original travel ban, affecting 6 majority-Muslim countries – Syria, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia and Libya.
The court asked both sides to address the issue of timing, along with questions about whether the ban is aimed at Muslims, the impact of Trump’s provocative campaign statements and federal courts’ authority to restrain the president in the area of immigration.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, another conservative who is often the court’s swing vote, sided with the four more liberal members of the court in the majority decision allowing an interim compromise regarding the ban.
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 early indications are that the administration will use the decision to take a tough line on travellers from those countries. The partial stay means that foreigners with no U.S. ties could be prohibited from entering the country, but those with ties such as through business or personal relationship would remain unaffected, The New York Times reported.
Who may have trouble entering the United States?
The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name.
But some immigration lawyers and advocates said relatively few people would fall under the ban because these travellers tend to have sufficient relationships with people or institutions in the United States.
The court tempered its ruling by saying the ban could not be implemented against people who have personal links to the USA, citing the examples of foreign nationals wishing to visit family or students accepted to attend university.
“Families without relationships who’ve been vetted and approved to travel are some of the most vulnerable refugees awaiting travel”, the IRC’s Daley Ryan said in a written statement.
Instead, he characterized the Supreme Court’s decision as “just another step forward”.
Like the fate of would-be tourists and scholars, the immediate future for refugees is murky.
The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration mostly enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it. However, Serrano says he’s anxious that refugee families could be detained at the airports because they won’t know how to prove their relationship with their resettlement agency.
“But I will say that symbolically the idea that a certain part of this Muslim ban order is going to stay in effect for at least a while is not a very attractive idea from a civil rights perspective”.
Part of Trump’s travel ban will presumably go into effect in 72 hours, or on Thursday.
The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t quite hit a home run Monday, but the justices hit a sharp double and a couple of singles that showed that there’s life yet in the lineup.
“Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban”.
The revised ban does not apply to legal permanent residents and those with current valid visas, but legal experts said it will apply to those who have yet to apply for entry to the U.S.
Gorsky said the standard is likely to sow confusion among USA consular officials who have to make visa decisions and could require another court decision to determine what constitutes a connection to the United States sufficient to allow entry.