September 27, 2020

Major win for president Trump: Supreme Court allows full enforcement of travel ban.

Supreme Court allows full Trump travel ban to take effect

The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump another major win by granting his administration’s request to fully reinstate the third version of his travel ban.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a federal district court in Maryland had said the president could only block nationals from the six majority Muslim countries — Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad — if they lacked a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The high court’s decision now puts those rulings on hold.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the government’s request.

The state of Hawaii and the International Refugee Assistance Project challenged Trump’s latest ban, arguing the Supreme Court carved out the same bona fide relationship exemption in June when it partially reinstated Trump’s 90-day ban on nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen.

When that order expired on Sept. 24, Trump issued new restrictions that eliminated Sudan but added Chad, North Korea and individuals affiliated with certain government agencies in Venezuela. The lower court bans did not block the restrictions on Venezuelan officials or immigrants from North Korea.

The Trump administration argued that a lot has changed since June. 

“Multiple government agencies have conducted a comprehensive, worldwide review of the information shared by foreign governments that is used to screen aliens seeking entry to the United States,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court papers.

“Based on that review, the proclamation adopts tailored entry restrictions to address extensive findings that a handful of particular foreign governments have deficient information-sharing and identity-management practices, or other risk factors.”

Hawaii’s attorney Neal Katyal said in court papers “it is difficult to conceive of a more flagrant example of discrimination because of nationality.”

Source: The Hill

Share
Source: