Ruling in travel ban leaves myriad questions unanswered


The high court is letting a limited version of the Trump administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries take effect, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.

In a statement, Trump called the high court's action "a clear victory for our national security", saying the justices allowed the travel suspension to become largely effective.

Courts "will struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a "bona fide relationship", who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship", Thomas said.

"It's good for me, but then what about the people who just finished their bachelor degree and want to go for PhD like me?" That would be Thursday morning. The affected countries, in fact, were identified as terrorist havens by the Obama administration.

- A lecturer invited to address an American audience.

Iranian authorities criticized the ban when it was announced earlier this year before it was suspended by the courts. Ahmed al-Nasi, an official in Yemen's Ministry of Expatriate Affairs, voiced disappointment. Many of them have family ties in the United States, she said, and have established relationships with US-based resettlement organizations.

"The only identifiable class anybody has been able to think of are people traveling for the first time as visitors to America, or people who are very occasional visitors to America who decide they are going to come between now and October", he said.

Читайте также: Defiant Pelosi Says She's Staying: 'I Think I'm Worth The Trouble'

Now the administration has a chance to prove to the justices that it can implement the partial ban in an even-handed and orderly way as it argues to restore its full reach and potentially make elements of it permanent.

"The world is a very risky place, and the president is right to try to protect Americans", he said. "But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security", the document specified. But, the justices wrote, "not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid" the travel ban.

But Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented from part of the opinion regarding the decision and stated a full-fledged ban should be put into effect despite the fact whether people had a "bona fide relationship" in the USA, as per the document.

If it had gone fully into effect, the travel ban would have prevented nationals of six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for 90 days, and the refugee ban would have prevented all refugees from any country from entering the United States for 120 days.

John Cohen, a former Department of Homeland Security official and an ABC News contributor said, "It is unclear to me who the ban would apply to, aside from someone who knows no one in the US and is coming here on vacation". The 50,000 uh limit that president Trump had in his executive order also doesn't apply to them. The Executive Order also exempts foreigners who wish to enter the United States to resume work or study, visiting a spouse, child or parent who is an American citizen or because of important business or professional responsibilities.

"We could have dozens of these cases between now and September", Vladeck said, adding that the Supreme Court would not be likely to weigh in on them on a case-by-case basis.

Proponents of letting students use public money to go to religious schools, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, applaud the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a Lutheran church was wrongly denied a state grant. The four liberal justices were silent.

При любом использовании материалов сайта и дочерних проектов, гиперссылка на обязательна.
«» 2007 - 2018 Copyright.
Автоматизированное извлечение информации сайта запрещено.

Код для вставки в блог