Friday, 14 December, 2018

Supreme Court rules to allow full enforcement of Trump travel ban

Supreme Court rules to allow full enforcement of Trump travel ban Supreme Court rules to allow full enforcement of Trump travel ban
Sherri Watson | 05 December, 2017, 01:22

The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday to allow President Donald Trump's travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect.

The president issued the most recent travel ban in September. Critics have called it anti-Muslim, while the Trump administration touts it as a measure to combat terrorism.

As many are now opining, this suggests that the Court will uphold the ban when it makes its final decision on this action; exactly what at least three well known law professor have long predicted.

According to the government, the third version came after the Department of Homeland Security sent security and information-sharing requirements to foreign countries in July and identified the eight nations that neither met the requirements nor made improvements.

The justices, with two dissenting votes out of nine, granted the administration's request to lift injunctions imposed by lower courts blocking the ban. The other two are North Korea and Venezuela.

"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret".

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have kept in place partial stays on the order.

"The Constitution and acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prevent aliens overseas from entering this country when he deems it in the nation's interest", Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court papers.

The second video Trump retweeted claimed to show a statue of the Virgin Mary being destroyed by a Muslim.

Earlier court rulings said that the ban excluded people with "bona fide" relationships with someone in the United States.

"This court has already struck the equitable balance that governs this appeal, and the President's claim to unlimited power over immigration remains without merit", Katyal argued. Also unaffected are refugees.

Both cases are scheduled to be heard before the appeals courts this week.