US Supreme Court Permits Trump's Travel Ban Enforcement Against Refugees

Adjust Comment Print

The US Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

The justices said Trump could impose a limited version of the measure, but not on a person with a "bona fide" connection to the United States, such as having family members here, a job offer or a place in a USA university.

The Supreme Court granted Tuesday a Trump administration request to continue to bar most refugees under its travel ban.

On Tuesday, all nine US Supreme Court justices blocked the 9th Circuit ruling that exempted refugees with contractual relationships with resettlement organizations. The appeals court ruled that grandparents and cousins of people already in the USA can't be excluded from the country under the travel ban.

The Justice Department appealed, and Tuesday, the full Supreme Court, all 9 Justices sided with the Administration in a 1-sentence order.

Mohsin Hamid makes it to shortlist of Man Booker Prize
The panel of judges narrowed down the shortlist to 6 titles from a longlist of 13 that was announced on July 27. Exit West is Hamid's fourth novel and this is the second time he's made it to The Man Booker shortlist.

But the administration chose not to fight another part of last week's appeals court ruling, which expanded the types of relatives of Americans who are granted an exception from the executive order's ban on issuing visas to applicants from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Judge Watson, a leftwing appointee made by Barack Obama, said refugees working with resettlement agencies in the US are considered to have a "close" relationship and must be admitted. "Refugees' lives remain in vulnerable limbo during.the Supreme Court's stay", the judges wrote. That ruling is now stayed pending further action by the high court.

After a series of court defeats for Trump's proposed travel ban, the Supreme Court in June said parts of it could go into effect pending the outcome of the broader case. And on October 10th, the Delphic justices will give us some sense of their thinking when the oral argument transpires in Trump v International Refugee Assistance Project. Then, the justices will hear arguments on the legality of banning both travelers refugees.

"Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the government has pointed to in the past", wrote Washington lawyer Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii.

On the other hand, the court said, relationships formed for the objective of evading the travel ban did not count.