Trump travel ban partly reinstated
Supreme Court allows limited version to move forward; president hails it as a national victory
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to forge ahead with a limited version of his ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to the U.S.
Mr. Trump hailed the decision as a “victory for national security,” while disappointed immigration and refugee advocates ultimately welcomed what they described as an implicit rebuke of the White House’s assertion that the president has unfettered powers to exclude arrivals based on purported national security concerns.
The partial reinstatement is expected to set off a new round of court disputes over anti-terror efforts and religious discrimination.
The justices will hear full arguments in October in the case that has stirred heated emotions across the nation and pointed rebukes from lower courts saying the administration is targeting Muslims. Until then, the court said Monday, Mr. Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
The ruling sets up a potential clash between the government and opponents of the ban over the strength of visitors’ ties to the United States. A senior official said plans already had been written to enforce the ban aggressively. But immigrant groups said relatively few people try to enter the says. That review United States without wellestablished should be complete before ties. Those Oct. 2, the first day the groups said they will be justices could hear arguments sending lawyers and monitors in their new term. back to American airports, The ban will have run its where the initial, immediate course by then, raising a implementation of question of whether the the ban in January caused justices will even issue a decision chaos and confusion. in the case or dismiss
State Departmentit because it has been overtaken spokeswoman Heather by events. Nauert said the ban would The court asked both be implemented starting 72 sides to address the issue of hours after being cleared by timing, along with questions courts. That means it will about whether the ban take effect Thursday morning. is aimed at Muslims, the impact of Mr. Trump’s provocative
The president has denied campaign statements that the ban targets and federal courts’ authority Muslims but says it is to restrain the president needed “to protect the nation in the area of immigration. from terrorist activities” A 120-day ban on refugees committed by citizens also is being allowed to of the six countries. All six take effect on a similar, limited have been designated as basis. presenting heightened concerns Three of the court’s conservative about terrorism and justices said they travel to the United States. would have let the administration
The 90-day ban is necessary apply the bans without to allow an internal review the limits imposed by of screening procedures their colleagues. for visa applicants Justice Clarence Thomas, from the countries, the administration joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to win the legal case in the end. Justice Thomas said the government’s interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.
Although the court upheld only part of the ban and deferred judgment on the rest, Republicans like U.S. Reps. Mike Kelly and Pat Toomey — both of Pennsylvania — viewed the ruling as a win for conservatives.
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, DPa., said he needs time to review the decision in order to understand the implications of the parts of the ban that remain in place. However, he said, he opposes blanket bans.
Bishop Joe Vasquez, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, said the court ruling “will have human consequences.”