Press "Enter" to skip to content

Supreme Court Revives Trump Travel Ban

The Supreme Court of U.S. passed a conquest to President Donald Trump by permitting his impermanent ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no strong links to the United States while approving to decide this fall the legitimacy of the order. He got this victory on Monday.

This case shows a major test of the presidential power, the justices in their granted parts of the Trump administration’s emergency request to put the order into effect in their unspecified decision, despite the fact that the legal battle continues. The court, which tapering the scope of the lower court rulings that had completely congested his 6th March executive order, said it would hear arguments in the month of October. And the argument will be on the lawfulness of one of the Trump’s signature policies in his first month of presidency.

The order of March 6 called for the 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and also the 120-day ban on all the refugees to enable the government to implement stronger inspection measures. It was blocked by the federal judges before going into effect on March 16 as planned. And both the bans are now due to partly go into effect in 72 hours. It is based on a memo issued by the Trump administration on June 14.

Before the Supreme Court action the ban functional only to the new visa applicants, not for the people who have already the visas or are U.S. enduring residents, or known as green card holders.

This case is the Trump’s first and major challenge at the Supreme Court where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, he joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees. Trump has called the March order a “water down, politically correct” version of the January one.

It is said by the administration that the ban on travel is needed to allow time to contrivance sturdier selection measures, although it has already trundled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants.


Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *