Travel ban, church-state case await action by Supreme Court


Conway said the White House is "paying very close attention" to decisions that may come down before the court adjourns for the summer.

Last week Mr Trump said the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts, so it should come into effect on Thursday morning local time. The ban was blocked by lower courts and the high court agreed to hear oral arguments in its next term starting in October. Marco Rubio, R, Fla. said of the court action.

"The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down", Jadwat said in a statement.

Anyone with a school acceptance letter, job offer or family member already here would likely be able to obtain a visa and travel as normal.

The countries targeted were on a list from the previous Obama administration of places where the governments had very poor data on their own citizens, making it hard to vet the identities of visa applicants.

But other groups, such as Amnesty International USA, warned of grave consequences, such as a renewal of "chaos" at airports and an enforcement of the ban that would "tear families apart".

The court made an important exception, saying the ban "may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States". Trump cited national security concerns as the reason for the order.

The day's work at the Supreme Court promises an interesting fall term, putting off until then a final decision on the president's order and by taking an appeal from a Colorado baker that a lower court said violated the rights of two men who wanted him to bake a cake for their same-sex wedding.

In a ruling earlier this month, the three justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that "immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show".

"President Trump issued this order within his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the safety of our nation and its citizens", Sen. Sen.

The first ban ordered by President Trump on January 27 put a blanket ban on people from Iraq, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen and indefinitely halted the acceptance of refugees from Syria. "It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective".

Appeals courts on both coasts upheld those decisions.

Chin, who acknowledged the national security and presidential power arguments, said it was "premature" for Trump to declare victory.

Some lawyers also said the vagueness of the "bona fide" standard was license for the Trump administration to interpret it broadly.

The state's political conservatives applauded the decision that allowed several elements of the ban to go forward, the sort of victory that they have craved since Republicans began the year with the presidency and majorities in Congress. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, released a carefully worded statement welcoming the Supreme Court review which, "combined with input from the legislative branch, will provide the necessary oversight needed to properly execute the vetting process".

Justice, Department of Homeland Security and State Department officials said they were still studying the decision to see exactly who it affected, and how it might be implemented. "You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges".

"It's just like a green light to the government to do what it wants to do", said Kiyanoush Razaghi, a Maryland-based immigration attorney who deals with primarily Iranian clients.

Students who have been admitted to a US university, workers who have accepted offers of employment with USA companies, and lecturers invited to address an American audience: The Court provided these three examples of individuals who have credible claims of a bona fide relationship to an American entity.

The justices did make a number of significant rulings.