US Supreme Court partially reinstates Trump travel ban

Perdue applauds travel ban reinstatement

The court said the same standard should be applied to refugees who also would have been blocked under Trump's ban.

The Trump administration has argued it's necessary to suspend travel for 90 days from the six Muslim-majority countries and to halt refugee entry for 120 days to review whether USA safeguards are adequate to ensure that terrorists aren't allowed into the country. The court said the administration can block travellers from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen unless they can prove a "bona fide relationship" with a person or entity in the United States.

The court lifted the lower courts' injunctions and allowed the order's travel ban to go into effect "against foreign nationals overseas who have no connection to the United States at all".

The Department of Homeland Security said in a communique that it will provide more details regarding implementation of the ban after consulting with the State and Justice Departments.

President Trump's travel ban attempted to indefinitely deny visas to individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and deny entry to refugees from those countries for a limited period of time. The court ordered that the final merits of the case shall be argued before it as the first case when the court convenes its new term in October.

Indeed, President Trump stated in response to the ruling that the decision is "a clear victory for [United States] national security".

"As president, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm." he said in a statement.

"The US president's stances towards Muslims during his presidential campaign and after taking power are clear examples of such humiliating approach", Qassemi noted.

Under the Supreme Court decision, people with a "bona fide relationship" to a person or entity in the US will still be permitted entry. For one thing, people who never been in the United States and have no connection with anybody in the United States might not have any constitutional rights to begin with. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, "the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the goal of evading" the travel ban.

In response, the Trump administration said it would ask the Supreme Court to review the appellate decision upholding the stay blocking enforcement of the March 6 executive order.

After causing widespread disruptions at worldwide airports and protests from Muslims, rights groups and others, the order was challenged and blocked by district courts in Hawaii and Washington.

Protesters wave signs and chant during a demonstration against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, Monday, May 15, 2017, outside a federal courthouse in Seattle. "It's not something that is handed out very easily", says Jayashri Srikantiah, the founding director of Stanford Law School's Immigrants' Rights Clinic.

At Dulles Airport outside Washington, lawyers are planning to be there to assist travelers as necessary and also show customs and border agents they are watching, said Sirine Shebaya, a board member with the Dulles Justice Coalition.

Related News: