Supreme Court allows Trump's revised travel ban in part


It did give some examples: people with relatives in the USA or foreign students admitted to a U.S. university are bona fide, while an immigration non-profit can't add foreigners as clients in order for them to elude the ban. It is unclear whether the move will result in the same chaotic scenes at airports in the U.S. and around the world as were seen when the order first came into effect earlier this year.

"As President, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm", the president said in a written statement.

There could, of course, be disputes.

In his statement, President Trump said that the "unanimous Supreme Court decision" was "a clear victory for our national security".

Most people with visas looking to travel from the affected countries to the USA who wish to bypass the partially-reinstated restrictions would need to demonstrate a connection to either an organization or an individual in order to be allowed entry.

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are US permanent residents, known as green card holders.

The State Department provisionally revoked tens of thousands of visas, and some travelers were detained and sent away from USA airports, prompting a flurry of legal challenges.

"Neil Gorsuch, who I did not support as a Supreme Court justice, he's joined two of the most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Alito, on the court to take the position the entire injunction should have been lifted", Sen.

More news: Colorado baker disputes anti-discrimination law

In other words, not only can travelers with valid green cards and visas from the six countries-Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen-still travel to the US, anyone with a "bona fide relationship" with a person or organization in the USA cannot be prevented from traveling, either. Examples of a good-faith relationship could include relatives of US citizens and foreign exchange students. That order was blocked by a lower court until today's ruling.

But the court concluded that foreigners who have no ties to the USA can not argue, on their own, that constitutional protections apply to them.

The visa ban was supposed to last 90 days, the refugee ban 120. Support for the ban was 4 points higher - 55 percent approve vs. 51 percent approve - when the population was described as "people" rather than "people, including US lawful permanent residents and visa holders originally".

Trump has already said the ban would take effect within 72 hours of court approval. They languidly put the issue on their October calendar, pointing out that the government had not asked the court to act more quickly.

Judge Roger Gregory wrote the executive order "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination".

The court said it would hear the legal dispute in the fall, but acknowledged the case may be moot by then because the 90-day ban will have expired.

Some immigration lawyers said the limited nature of the ban raises questions about how much impact it will have.