Broader ban on refugees backed by Supreme Court
UNITED STATES: The US Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.
The justices yesterday granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the US than would otherwise have been eligible.
The ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump’s controversial executive order, which banned travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and limited refugee admissions.
The March 6 order suspended travel for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days, in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks and allow the government to put in place more stringent vetting procedures.
The order took effect in late June, following a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the scope of lower court rulings. The justices said Trump could impose a limited version of the measure, but not on a person with a ‘‘bona fide’’ connection to the US, such as having family members there, a job offer or a place in a US university. It is the interpretation of a ‘‘bona fide’’ connection that is being debated.
In a ruling last week, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal US residents would be exempt from the travel ban. The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.
However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump’s refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.
The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court yesterday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.
Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA’s senior director of campaigns, said the refugee ban was inherently cruel.
‘‘The Supreme Court today has dealt yet another devastating blow to vulnerable people who were on the cusp of obtaining safety for themselves and their families,’’ she said. ‘‘They continue to be subjected to unimaginable violence and fear while their lives are in limbo.’’
In response, the state of Hawaii, which is challenging the travel ban, told the Supreme Court that the government’s argument made no sense.
‘‘By the government’s own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they represent a security threat,’’ wrote Washington lawyer Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii.
- Reuters, Washington Post