Supreme Court Reinstates Part of Trump's Travel Ban

Share

President Donald Trump's initial travel ban in January led to chaos at airports around the world, but airlines say they don't expect similar problems this time. The ban, which affects travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, had previously been struck down by two lower courts.

In a partial dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said he anxious that "the court's remedy will prove unworkable" and "compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country".

The March 6 motion called for a 90-day ban on passengers entering the U.S. from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and a 120-day ban on all refugees, using that time to allow the government to introduce more stringent checks on borders.

A 120-day ban on refugees also is being allowed to take effect on a limited basis. In this situation, the details of Trump's immigration order are what count.

That's no minor exception, according to immigrant groups, who say relatively few people come to the US from the affected countries without such close ties. "The revised version of the order and the new decision from the Supreme Court still don't make any sense". Under immigration law, a "refugee" is someone seeking admission into the country for humanitarian reasons or under fear of persecution in his native land, and, thus, is an immigration category different from that of persons seeking general entry into the country.

MSU has 18 worldwide students from the six predominantly Muslim countries affected by the Trump administration's travel ban.

Olat, who keeps in contact with friends and distant family members in the refugee camp, said he knows many people who have either concluded the vetting process or are still going through it.

The issue of whether one can divine a presidential order's intent by parsing a presidential candidate's heated rhetoric is an interesting one, but the Supreme Court may not even need to go there.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions voiced confidence the government would prevail when the nation's top judges hear the case.

The travel ban was ill-conceived and implemented in a ham-handed manner. And the court ruled that the government can not apply the ban to anyone with a "bona fide relationship" to family or organizations in this country. That order also was blocked - until the Supreme Court's Monday action.

While the ban did not single out Muslims, lower court judges cited Trump's repeated campaign statements that he meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

Among other questions lawyers were grappling with were the intent of the executive order and how specific the instructions should be in interpreting what constitutes a "bona fide relationship".

The justices will hear arguments in the case in the fall.

Reacting to Monday's ruling, Trump said he felt vindicated by what he called "a clear victory for our national security". The new technology comes as the airline is facing a tough travel environment with the implementation of the travel ban, as well as the ban on large laptops and electronic devices.

Share