Supreme Court allows parts of Trump's travel ban

The Supreme Court, citing the government's need to provide for the nation's security, is permitting portions of President Trump's travel ban to take effect.


With the unanimous 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court made clear that a limited version of the policy can be enforced immediately with a full hearing to come in the Fall.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded.

“As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. 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 court stated in its ruling.

President Trump said the ruling was a victory for national security in the United States.

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security.  It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective.

"As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm.  I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.

"My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe.  Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland.  I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0," President Trump said.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate opinion, which was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. They would have allowed the government to reinstate the ban for all travelers from the six affected countries, regardless of any personal connection that those travelers might have with the United States.

Thomas states that today’s order could prove “unworkable,” requiring government officials to try to figure out whether would-be travelers have enough of an connection to the United States to come here, and could “invite a flood of litigation.”

“The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the judgments below will be reversed. The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.’

"Today’s 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 compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780," Thomas wrote.

A 1952 federal law -- the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence -- historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate," the law states.

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.