Supreme Court reinstates Trump travel ban


The test for prospective travelers under the Supreme Court's new decision is whether one has a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with either an entity or person living in the United States - if you do, you can come to the USA; if you don't, you are banned for 90 days if you are from Libya, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan (and 120 days if you are a refugee). Trump wrote in one of several tweets criticizing rulings from various federal judges this year.

Trump has already said the ban would take effect within 72 hours of court approval.

But the Supreme Court's decision nonetheless marks a win for the Republican leader, who has insisted the ban is necessary for national security, despite criticism that it singles out Muslims in violation of the USA constitution. That means students and lecturers coming to the USA for their studies, workers employed by American companies, and people coming to visit family will not be impacted by the executive order.

Monday's decision recognized that the ban would be devastating to families, organizations and communities across the United States. According to Heller, any asylum-seeker who has been assigned to an American resettlement agency-an "entity" in the USA -is qualified to enter the country under the terms of the Supreme Court's ruling. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.

The justices largely rejected a series of lower court orders that had blocked Trump's policy from taking effect.

Cornell University Law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr said while the order is a win for the Administration, it has the potential to sow confusion as its being implemented given the caveat for individuals with USA ties.

Beyond giving Trump a victory, the Supreme Court decision will have a real impact on who can travel to the USA from six majority-Muslim countries.

In 2016, more than 100,000 people legally entered America from those six countries.

Hetfield criticized the fact that those without such ties could now be barred from entering the United States.

President Donald Trump on Monday celebrated a victory for his oft-criticized travel ban, blasted President Barack Obama's handling of Russian election interference and met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

That exception would allow the majority of visitors from those six countries to enter the United States. The temporary ban will not apply to visa seekers who have strong, documented connections to the United States, such as those wanting to visit family members, students admitted or enrolled in American schools or workers who have accepted employment here.

The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals overseas and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry.

The court handled the refugee ban in a similar way, allowing the government to exclude from the United States refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity. The court was clear this has to be a "bona fide" relationship - meaning it can not be manufactured just to get around the ban.

The 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled on immigration law, saying Trump's order failed to provide the required justification under the Immigration and Nationality Act for suspending the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality. The bad news is the court refused to give the White House the full legal remedy it was seeking: a complete stay on the injunction, which would have provided the president with the power to implement the order as outlined in the text.

The court is hearing appeals from both Maryland and Hawaii.

In January, Ferguson filed a lawsuit challenging the legality and constitutionality of President Trump's original travel ban.

May 15: The order again faces judicial scrutiny, this time at an appeals court in Seattle.