Trump’s Travel Ban Reinstated by Supreme Court

Today, the Trump administration reached a partial victory.

The United States Supreme Court announced there will be a review of the lower court injunctions which are blocking the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order to temporarily stop travel from six Islamic countries.

This means the Court is allowing the ban to go into effect.

Any foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States,” will be denied entry if they are from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The court, in a per curiam opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of these six Islamic countries on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States:

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion.

Such formal relationships include: students accepted to US universities and an employee who has accepted a job with a company in the US.

According to Breitbart: The Court wrote that the lower court injunctions, even accepting the First Amendment arguments against the order as likely to succeed, went too far:

[T]he injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national.

The opinion also announced the Court will consolidate the cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Fourth circuit, Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, respectively. Both cases found the executive unenforceable as a likely violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause because the lower courts held it was motivated by an attempt to disfavor Islam.

The Court had requested additional briefing from the parties in both cases earlier this month, signalling they would hear arguments on the case despite the Court going out of its regular term this week. Arguments are expected to be heard when the Court reconvenes in October. Attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center are expected to face off against a government team now led by acting Solicitor General Jeffery Wall.

The government had argued in the new briefing that the injunctions had delayed the start date for the 90-day order. This would allow the ban… to remain valid despite having been issued in March.

A dissent from the per curiam decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, would have gone further and stayed the injunctions in their entirety, allowing the travel ban to go fully into effect immediately.

Will the Trump admin see a full victory in October?

Time will tell, but for now we need to be thankful for this small victory.

America just took one step towards the safety of its citizens.

Share Your Comments
Trending Now on GJWHG