TRUMP ‘WINS’ TRAVEL BAN CASE
Supreme Court partially reinstates president’s ban, but will hear arguments in the case in October
WASHINGTON
THE Supreme Court on Monday partially reinstated President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban targeting citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries, prompting the president to claim a victory for national security.
The nine justices, who will hear arguments in the case in October, said the ban could be enforced for travellers from the targeted countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”.
The court tempered its ruling by saying the ban could not be implemented against people who had personal links to the US, citing the examples of foreign nationals wishing to visit family or students accepted to attend university.
But the decision nonetheless marks a win for the Republican leader, who had insisted the ban was necessary for national security, despite criticism that it singled out Muslims in violation of the Constitution.
The State Department said it would begin enforcing the travel ban “in a professional, organised and timely way” within 72 hours, in line with a memorandum signed by Trump earlier this month.
Trump has suffered a series of judicial defeats over the ban, with two Federal Appeals Courts maintaining injunctions on it by arguing that his executive order discriminated against travellers based on their nationality.
Trump said he felt vindicated by what he called “a clear victory for our national security”.
“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm.”
On Twitter, he added: “Great day for America’s future security and safety, courtesy of the US Supreme Court. I will keep fighting for the American people, & WIN!”
Trump’s initial executive order, handed down without warning a week after he took office in January, triggered mayhem at airports in the US and abroad until it was blocked by the courts less than a week later. But rights group said they did not expect chaos this time around.
The State Department vowed to keep travellers and travel industry partners informed as it implemented the order, and to keep the US Refugee Admissions Programme “apprised of changes as they take effect”.
Trump’s revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days.
The original measure also included Iraq and an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.
Opponents welcomed the fact that the Supreme Court tempered the reach of the ban, as well as the prospect of the case being heard in the fall.
David Cole, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the ruling’s impact would be limited and the real crunch would come in October.
The judges “essentially adopted a middle course” between the government’s request to uphold Trump’s order and the ACLU’s appeals to stay the ban, he said.
“The court went out of its way to not tip its hand as to how it will rule on the ultimate issue, which is whether the president has the power to do this.”
The New York Immigration Coalition, another fierce opponent, said the ruling created more confusion by using the term “bona fide relationship”, which “agencies and individuals will struggle to make sense of ”. AFP