US Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban

US Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban

US Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban

While Tuesday's ruling does not deal with the arrest or prosecution of border crossers, it will likely be cited by Trump's lawyers as bolstering the government's authority along the borders. Effective May 25, 2017, consular offices implemented the Trump administration's "extreme vetting" efforts through a three-page supplemental questionnaire that requests, among other information, passport numbers, employment history, and travel history-including the source of funding-over the past 15 years.

Another top Republican, Sen.

Bill O'Keefe, Catholic Relief Services' vice president for government relations, said in a statement that numerous people seeking refuge in the USA are victims of the same terrorists Americans are trying to fight, and denying them entry won't make the nation safer.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan, suggested a functional test to determine if the ban truly rests on security needs or excludes Muslims due to their religion: whether it has allowed for exemptions and waivers as with past travel restriction orders.

"In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country", Trump said.

Pelosi says Democrats will push policies that are "strong and smart, not reckless, rash and prejudiced".

The ruling is not, however, a blanket approval to ban immigration from wherever the president wants.

SAN FRANCISCO The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling upholding President Donald Trump's travel ban may have a silver lining for people fighting other administration immigration policies after the 5-4 majority ruled that the president's prior comments about Muslims were not off limits when evaluating the ban, legal experts said. But Arthur conceded that Roberts and his majority also managed to provide the longest and most in-depth defense yet of the presidential ability to ban people deemed "detrimental to the interests" of the U.S.

In the months since the travel ban went into effect, "the number of cases cleared for waivers has grown at an increasing rate", Waters wrote. "These are the real world impacts for the Muslim community around this ban".

Trump first introduced the executive order the month he became president, in January 2017, with plans to put it into effect nearly immediately, setting off a series of protests in airports across the country.

"This is not the first time the court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it. History has its eyes on us - and will judge today's decision harshly", it tweeted. Ellison is one of two Muslim members of Congress.

Hundreds of people gathered in New York City's Foley Square on Tuesday evening to decry the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge that the policy discriminated against Muslims or exceeded Trump's authority.

The court held that the challengers had failed to show that the ban violates either US immigration law or the US Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on the government favouring one religion over another.

Parents, spouses or children could still be admitted into the country, the White House said.

"As here, the exclusion order was rooted in unsafe stereotypes about a particular group's supposed inability to assimilate and desire to harm the United States", Sotomayor wrote. "And we should be setting a standard on this planet of what humanity should be about".

Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the policy is justified on national-security grounds.

Coons, of DE, is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Roberts wrote that presidents have frequently used their power to talk to the nation "to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded". It means that the current ban can remain in effect and that Trump could potentially add more countries. Salon goes with "Democracy in peril: With the Supreme Court backing down, who will stop Donald Trump?" When CNN asked in February 2017 if the executive order is an attempt to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., 55% said it was. He also rejected the challengers' claim of anti-Muslim bias.

"By blindly accepting the Government's misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security", she writes, "the Court redeploys the same unsafe logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one "gravely wrong" decision with another".

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court's first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy.

Related news