Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON The Trump administration could begin barring some people from six majority-Muslim countries under its revised travel ban as early as this week, after the U.S. Supreme Court partially reinstated the controversial executive order ahead of hearing the case in the fall.

In October the justices will consider arguments that the order discriminates against Muslims, and the Trump administrations defense that the measure is crucial to national security.

The court kept in place an injunction that exempts people with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States such as students, researchers or family members from the temporary moratorium. In those cases, the court reasoned, the concrete claim of hardship on the entrants outweighs the administrations national security claims.

But in most cases, where no such family, work or other relationship exists, the court is allowing the government to enforce the policy for the first time, noting that the equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context.

The Trump administration cheered the unsigned order from the high court as a victory, and White House officials said enforcement of the order will begin as soon as Thursday. The six targeted nations Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have been identified as sources of terrorism and the government said it sought the temporary ban to improve vetting procedures.

Trump called the ruling a clear victory.

My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe, Trump said in a statement. Todays ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nations homeland.

But three of the courts justices and some experts said the decision to allow the travel ban in some cases but not others could create uncertainty and more problems.

Three justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump-appointee Neil Gorsuch said in a separate opinion that they would have lifted the partial injunction entirely, citing in part the confusion it could create.

I fear that the Courts remedy will prove unworkable, Thomas wrote on the three justices behalf.

Todays compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding on peril of contempt whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country, he stated.

The decision to allow the ban to go into limited effect, raises more questions than it answers, said Elizabeth F. Cohen, associate professor of political science at Syracuse University, noting that the case may not be heard at all.

The justices asked the parties to brief the additional question of whether the challenge will become moot by the time the case comes before the court in the fall. That indicates the court could dismiss the case altogether if the ban, which applies to foreign entrants from 90 days and Syrian refugees for 120 days, has run its course by then.

Neal Katyal, the veteran Supreme Court litigator representing Hawaii in the challenge against the travel ban, tweeted: Partial victory? Hmmm. Time will tell, but 6-3 (decision) leaving injunction of travel/refugee bans intact for US-connected people very significant.

Visit link:
Donald Trump calls ruling 'victory,' experts wary - Boston Herald