State Dept. to Implement Supreme Court Decision on Travel Ban

State Dept. to Implement Supreme Court Decision on Travel Ban

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a victory Monday by reviving part of his disputed ban on foreign travelers from six Muslim-majority nations. "It would have to be someone seeking a tourist visa from one of the six countries, who knows no one in the USA, and who has no reason to be in the US except for vacation", she told me. "What is not clear is exactly who those people are, and that will certainly be the subjects of future lawsuits".

The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to enforce most of its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim nations, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria.

Judges should look only to whether the executive orders were proper on their face, they said, without trying to decide if the president had ulterior motives, and defer to national security decisions made by the executive branch.

It also will hear arguments in the fall in cases filed in federal courts in Hawaii and Maryland that raised questions about the president's broad powers in immigration matters with respect to national security and religious discrimination.

The judges "essentially adopted a middle course" between the government's request to uphold Trump's order and the ACLU's appeals to stay the ban, he told AFP.

As a refresher, the court was considering two cases challenging the revised Muslim ban, which had been narrowed after it was swiftly struck down in court: IRAP v. Trumpand Hawaii v. Trump.

Elected officials and Utah organizations that work with refugees expressed concern over the Supreme Court's action on the Trump administration's travel ban. But they said they are anxious about other immigrants, including refugees who may be desperate for help but lack USA relations.

"All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]". That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends September 30.

What the decision means in practical terms is that anyone coming to visit a family member in the United States, or anyone who has a relationship with a school, an employer, a nonprofit organization, or another entity in the United States, is exempted from the ban. That would include students who have been admitted to a USA school and workers who have accepted an offer of employment from an American company, the court said.

More news: Air bag recalls, lawsuits lead Takata to file for bankruptcy
More news: Breaking down the revised travel ban
More news: Nigel Farage hits out at Jeremy Corbyn's Glastonbury appearance

Given how controversial and unsuccessful the travel ban executive order has been in the court system thus far, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision is indeed a surprise (we've grown used to 5-4 decisions on controversial matters). Both courts reached their conclusions in March in part by examining Trump's record as a candidate, which included his 2015 statement "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

"I continue to believe the system the United States had in place for vetting refugees from war-torn areas, prior to the travel ban, was extensive and thoughtful".

In lifting most of the injunctions on the executive order, the court distinguished between foreign nationals "who have a credible claim of a bona fide" family tie to the United States and those who do not.

Three S.C. congressmen say a Supreme Court associate justice is unable to fairly hear cases involving Donald Trump and should recuse herself from all cases involving the president.

Federal courts blocked the program, which represented the first step in guiding Trump back onto solid constitutional ground.

For the next 90 days, citizens from six Muslim-majority countries will not be allowed to enter the United States due to their country's accused support of terrorism.

The Anti-Defamation League, along with its criticism, also praised the court for limiting the scope of the order. That order also was blocked - until the Supreme Court's Monday action.

The Trump Administration dropped its appeal, and, Ferguson said, reimbursed the Washington State Attorney General's Office for its court costs.