Trump travel ban: What comes next?
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court’s partial reinstatement of President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban has immigration lawyers and travelers trying to unpack how exactly the ban will be implemented when it takes effect Thursday. Here’s what we know about what the ruling means:
t 5IF SFTUSJDUJPOT UBSHFU WJTJtors from six countries: Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. Of travelers from those countries, the nation’s highest court said those “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” cannot enter — meaning US citizens and people with familial ties to the US can. The court also said students accepted to attend university stateside or who had been hired by a US employer would be able to come — but emphasized that establishing such a connection just to gain entry would not be allowed. t &BSMJFS UIJT NPOUI 5SVNQ signed a memorandum informing agencies to begin enforcing the measure 72 hours after lower court freezes were lifted, and it is set to take effect Thursday. Bloomberg News reported that implementation would begin at 8 p.m. EST, in order to provide embassies and consulates around the globe prior guidance on how to enforce the ban. Officials in the administration as well as in airports
are hoping to avoid the chaos sparked by Trump’s original executive order, which was unveiled in January to massive protests and confusion at border control points as well as a flurry of legal challenges. The ban on travelers from the six countries will last 90 days, and the refugee ban for 120, as defined by the executive order. t 5IF EFDJTJPO DMPTFE months of legal wrangling, and the Supreme Court will take up the case when it returns in October from its summer recess. But as agencies await clarification on the partial ban’s implementation, some anticipate legal battles will persist. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who wanted the ban implemented for anyone from the six countries, wrote Monday he fears the court decision “will prove unworkable.”
It “will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship.’”