Trump Travel Ban can stay despite ongoing legal battle: SC

It Seems The Supreme Court Will Side With Trump’s Travel Bans

MATT WADE is licensed under CC BY 2.0

The country-specific restrictions affect travel to the United States by nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and certain employees of the Venezuelan government. Further, the government says, courts don't have the authority to review the president's decision to exclude foreigners overseas unless Congress authorizes them to, and Congress has provided no such authorization. A federal judge in Seattle soon blocked it, and since then, courts have wrestled with the restrictions anew as the administration has rewritten them.

The court's unsigned orders on Monday urged appeals courts to quickly determine whether the latest ban was lawful.

His tweet came in response to a US Supreme Court ruling that the government could fully enforce a revised ban on travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen pending appeal, backing US President Donald Trump in the year-long battle over the controversial measure.

The court did not issue an opinion with the order, but usually the justices do not intervene in pending cases unless they believe the lower courts have gone wrong.

The decision, with only two dissents, strongly suggests the justices believe the current version of Trump's broad travel ban does not exceed his powers under the immigration laws and does not reflect unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims.

Beyoncé surprises Colin Kaepernick with Legacy award
Kaepernick skipped the red carpet prior to the show and was not available for questions. Because if it were not for my love of the people, I would not have protested.

"It's well documented that Trump says, 'yes, this is me fulfilling my campaign promises of my anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric, '" Adams agreed, adding that ultimately the key is whether or not the the Supreme Court is "going to accept the Trump administration's argument that the court should blind itself to history... to all thats occured over the last 11, 12 months".

But the Trump administration, which says the ban is crucial to protect USA national security and deter terror attacks, secured strong support from the Supreme Court in a 7-2 vote to let the government move ahead while the appeals continue.

The challengers convinced the lower courts to put implementation on hold while they and government lawyers fight out the legality of the policy.

President Trump met with the Libyan prime minister on December 1 to discuss counter-terrorism efforts.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said that it was unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now.

BJP could lose majority in Gujarat, says ABP-CSDS survey
The Congress is also hoping to bridge a gap of nearly 9 per cent vote share, the difference that led the BJP to victory in 2012. Significantly, the popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has dipped by 18 points from 82% in August to 64% in November.

The Justice Department "will vigorously defend the president's lawful action", the White House said, contending its proclamation restricting travel was issued after an extensive worldwide security review.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in Hawaii's challenge to the ban on Wednesday, while the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in the refugee groups' challenge on Friday.

Judge Chuang limited his injunction to exclude people without "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States", quoting from a Supreme Court order issued in June concerning the second travel ban.

Lawyers for Hawaii, which is challenging the ban, told the justices that there was no reason to make changes now. The move was largely seen as a victory for the administration even though the court did not rule on the merits of the case. "But the justification for that dramatic relief has only weakened".

"Now that the review has been completed and identified ongoing deficiencies in the information needed to assess nationals of particular countries", he wrote, "additional restrictions are needed".

No sector-by-sector Brexit impact assessments exist, David Davis tells MPs
David Davis has been accused of "misleading parliament" over the Brexit impact studies, after he repeatedly denied any had been carried out.

Latest News