Breaking News

Supreme Court Allows Portions of Travel Ban to Be Enforced
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Summary: The Supreme Court has allowed travelers from six Muslim-majority countries to be banned from entering the U.S. if they have no proven ties to Americans or American entities. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed certain parts of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to go into effect. The court will also hear oral arguments on the case this fall.

  
What
Where


The travel ban was introduced on March 16 and was a revision of another executive order signed earlier in the year. The March 16 ban stated that people from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen who do not have valid visas will not be allowed into the United States for 90 days. Additionally, the order explicitly stated that legal permanent residents and current visa holders will not be affected by the travel ban.

The Supreme Court ruled that the ban can be enforced on foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.” The other parts of the ban against citizens of the six Muslim-majority countries listed who have relationships with Americans or American entities remain on hold.

Relationships to Americans include having American family members, and examples of relationships to entities include students accepted into U.S. universities or employees hired by American companies.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!




According to CNN, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a win for the Trump administration. Lower courts had blocked the ban from taking effect, and Trump’s team had worked to fight their decisions.

This is the first time that the Supreme Court had ruled on the travel ban, and the justices chose to ignore Trump’s wild tweets on the subject.



The approved portions of the travel ban could take effect in less than 72 hours.

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

Trump said that the ruling was a “clear win for national security” and that he was gratified that the court had voted unanimously 9-0 in his favor. USA Today said that it is unclear whether or not the decision was truly unanimous because the court issued a “per curiam” opinion that no one signed.

What is known, however, is that the three conservative judges on the panel voted to implement Trump’s travel ban in its entirety. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Samuel Ilito all said that the Supreme Court approved portions of the ban did not do enough.

“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,” Thomas said.

Trump’s original travel ban caused chaos at airports as authorities were unclear on how to enforce the rules, which were broad and confusing. In response to the criticism, the administration revised the ban, but opponents said that it was still discriminatory towards Muslims.

CNN legal analyst Page Pate predicted that the allowed portion of the travel ban will still have the same enforcement issues that the original ban had had.

“That’s going to be an extreme headache. Think about how the people at the border, at airports are going to make that decision,” said Pate. “Who is going to make this decision? If we leave it to the folks on the front line, that’s just going to lead to more litigation.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that our nation’s security risks are real and that the country needs to properly monitor who enters it.

“The threat to our national security is real…” Sessions said. “It is crucial that we properly vet those seeking to come to America from these locations, and failing to do so put is all in danger.”

Source: Huffington Post

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s decision? Let us know in the comments below.



 

Interesting Legal Sites You May Like


BCG FEATURED JOB

Locations:

Keyword:



Search Now

Litigation Trial Attorney with 3-5 years of pleading experience

USA-WA-Seattle

Seattle office of our client seeks litigation trial attorney with 3-5 years of experience. The candi...

Apply Now

Corporate Attorney with mergers and acquisitions experience

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Los Angeles office is seeking a corporate attorney with 1-6 years of M&A, corporate finance, securit...

Apply Now

Staff Attorney with 4-6 years of trademark and litigation experience

USA-PA-Philadelphia

Philadelphia office of our client seeks staff attorney ideally with 4-6 years of trademark prosecuti...

Apply Now

Patent Prosecution Associate

USA-IL-Chicago

Chicago office of our client seeks patent prosecution associate with experience. The candidate shoul...

Apply Now

RELEVANT JOBS

In House General Counsel

USA-CA-Fort Bragg

Mendocino Coast District Hospital (MCDH) is seeking a full time, qualified attorney interested in pr...

Apply now

Corporate / Commercial Attorney | Lebanon, NH

USA-NH-Lebanon

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC seeks an experienced corporate / commercial attorney to join its Lebanon o...

Apply now

Business Law Junior Associate | Burlington, VT

USA-VT-Burlington

Downs Rachlin Martin seeks associate attorney with 1-3 years of experience to join its Commercial an...

Apply now

Business Law Associate | Burlington

USA-VT-Burlington

Downs Rachlin Martin is seeking an attorney with 4 to 8 years of experience to join its very busy pr...

Apply now

Most Popular

SEARCH IN ARCHIVE

To Top