What the Supreme Court's Travel Ban Decision Means for Travelers

Share

While the Supreme Court said that it would hear the case concerning the ban in October when it reconvenes, the justices noted that it was entirely possible that the case would be a moot point, since the ban is supposed to be temporary.

However, a federal judge in Hawaii blocked the revised ban hours before it was to go into effect.

"Allowing parts of the ban to go into effect with respect to some immigrants and refugees is disappointing." says Michal Rosenn, general counsel at Kickstarter, said in a statement provided to CNN Tech.

"As President, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm", Trump said. The Supreme Court has yet to hear oral arguments in the case. The Court has five Republican magistrates and four Democrats.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to win the legal case in the end.

But the Supreme Court said the government could enforce its measure against "foreign nationals unconnected to the United States" without causing injury to the parties who filed suit.

The ban would prevent people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States unless they can prove that they have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity" inside the United States. But those seeking visas to enter the United States with no such ties could be barred. The Court said that it will "fully expect" the government to be able to review its vetting process within the 90 days that the executive order proposes.

More news: Goldman Sachs, mocked by prospective client Whole Foods, ended up advising Amazon

Thus, the decision will allow the 120-day ban on refugees to be implemented, given that those people are fleeing their countries of origin and have no prior relationship with USA individuals or institutions.

She says the U.S.is also working with its partners to implement the part of the ban that affects refugee admissions to the U.S. She says the State Department will keep the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program updated about changes "as they take effect". "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national", the court said. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required.

Those courts had argued the president had overstepped his authority, and that his executive order discriminated against travelers based on their nationality.

While the ban itself did not single out Muslims, the judges cited Trump's repeated statements during last year's presidential race that he meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

Trump had suffered a series of stinging judicial setbacks over the ban, with two federal appeals courts maintaining injunctions on it. Trump signed the order as a replacement for a January 27 order issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts. His presidential campaign speeches, official statements and tweets gave opponents of the ban fodder for their challenges - from Trump's vow in 2015 to seek "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" to his lament this month that his lawyers should have pushed for a "much tougher version" rather than the "politically correct" order he signed in March.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked Monday if Trump still considers this version of the order to be "watered down" and "politically correct".

Share