Ruling in travel ban leaves myriad questions unanswered

Alvin Kelly
June 27, 2017

"As president, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm", he added, in a White House statement".

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

The Supreme Court approved a scaled-back version of President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries Monday, agreeing to hear the merits of the case in the fall but allowing Trump for now to claim a victory in the contentious legal showdown.

Trump's initial executive order - handed down without warning a week after he took office in January - triggered mayhem at airports in the United States and overseas until it was blocked by the courts less than a week later. This would allow the court to punt on the major constitutional issues that emerged from executive order; namely, the extent to which the Establishment Clause can be applied, whether the reach of executive power in applying national security measures is truly unfettered and whether executive statements-or tweets-made outside the language of an executive order can be considered in determining underlying motivation for the order itself. "Many of these individuals may not have 'bona fide relationships, ' but have strong reasons to look to the United States for protection".

America's highest court said in an unsigned 13-page opinion that it would hear arguments in October.

The Court will take up the case in October.

"The Supreme Court ruling said the same rule will apply to refugees", Professor Schlanger said.

The president has denied that the ban targets Muslims but says it is needed "to protect the nation from terrorist activities" committed by citizens of the six countries. In the interim, the Homeland Security secretary was to have asked the affected countries to provide information about their citizens' wanting US visas, review the data and report to the president those which could not adequately comply. That means no one should be blocked at a US airport, but rather they will simply be denied a visa.

All three spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing repercussions that could negatively affect their entry process.

However, until it can issue a definitive ruling, the court authorized the Trump administration to deny U.S. entry to people affected by the ban who do not have relatives in the United States or who have no previously established plans to work at companies or study at educational institutions in the US.

More news: Oil holds near multi-month lows as glut fears persist

The ruling also upholds the 120-day ban on refugee claimants who also do not have existing ties with a person or organisation in the States.

It could also mean more lawsuits if advocates for immigrants believe the administration is going beyond the Supreme Court's guidelines in barring visitors to the United States.

Local lawyers will be among those watching what happens when the travel ban approved Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court takes effect.

The Anti-Defamation League, along with its criticism, also praised the court for limiting the scope of the order.

"In theory, you could say if somebody is coming for tourism and has made a reservation for a hotel, there's now a US interest in bringing them to the United States".

Trump's administration has said it needs the 90-day ban in order to conduct an internal review of screening procedures for visa applicants from those six countries.

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court pose for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on June 1 in Washington, D.C. Front row (seated from left) are Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

Consequently, visitors from six predominantly Muslim nations - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - are banned from entering the US for 90 days.

A Department of Homeland Security statement said the agency will provide additional details on implementation and that it "will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry".

Other reports by LeisureTravelAid

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER