Saturday, 19 January, 2019

Gov. Malloy reacts to Supreme Court decision on travel ban

Alfredo Watts | 28 June, 2017, 01:39

The US Supreme Court delivered a victory this Monday to President Donald Trump approving his provisional ban on entering the United States for travelers from six Muslim countries and for people who do not have strong ties with the United States, adding that they will decide on the legality of that order this autumn. The unsigned decision was per curiam, that is, for the whole court. People from Libya, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Yemen would be barred from entering the USA unless they meet the formal relationship exception.

The initial order created chaos and confusion as the Trump administration scrambled to make changes amid backlash as legal US residents, refugees and holders of valid visas were denied boarding at foreign airports or detained and sent back overseas after landing in the United States.

The Fourth Circuit's ruling concerned only that provision, while the Ninth Circuit suspended additional sections of the order.

"It's the most routinely overturned court in the United States". The Administrative may therefore begin to enforce the Executive Order as against those individuals lacking such a relationship. It also nudged the president to complete his promised review of vetting procedures, which might mean the issue is resolved by the time the court is set to fully consider the ban in its October term. However, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the government can not ban people if they have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. But the Ninth Circuit explicitly held that it did not need to resolve the Establishment Clause issue because Trump had exceeded his authority under immigration statutory law to make decisions about national security and had not offered "sufficient justification" for his order.

Federal courts also blocked the second ban while the US President took the legal battle to the Supreme Court.

But attorneys say few people are likely to be affected, and they don't expect a repeat of the mass confusion that resulted earlier this year when President Donald Trump rolled out his original ban on travel from a group of mostly Muslim countries. The Supreme Court noted that no foreign national has any right to admission into this country for any reason.

Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, claiming he would have stayed the injunctions in full.

The court scheduled the broader case as part of its next session that begins in October - but pointedly suggested Mr. Trump may have concluded his broader review of USA visa policies by then, so there shouldn't be a need to hear the case at all.

The court, narrowing down the judgments of lower courts that have completely blocked its executive order since March 6, said it will open a hearing in October on the legality of this most important Trump decision in the first months of his presidency.