Reaction to Supreme Court decision upholding Trump’s ‘travel ban’

Adjust Comment Print

A second version of the ban came into effect in March 2017 but that too was blocked by a judge in Hawaii, as well as by another federal judge in Maryland.

When this case was argued before the court on 25 April, the majority of justices seemed to indicate they would uphold the president's ban. If Hillary Clinton beats Donald Trump on November 8, 2016, there's no way that the vacancy caused by the death of Antonin Scalia is filled by Neil Gorsuch.

Trump angrily recast the ban again.

KELLY: That version of the travel ban continued making its way through the courts. McConnell says it's a decision he's "comfortable with", even though he "didn't care for the earlier versions". With the frequency of Trump's broadsides against the justice system and the rule of law, it shouldn't be long at all.

Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the Supreme Court "may look behind the face of the proclamation" barring travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations, though he adopted a relatively easy standard for the administration to justify its travel policy.

Another top Republican, Sen.

The ruling noted the order was "well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other president".

The travel ban's stated goals of preventing entry to the USA of people who can not be adequately vetted and inducing other countries to improve their security practices provided legitimate justifications, Roberts wrote.

The court said that the ban is "facially neutral toward religion", and that the Trump's statements don't change that fact.

He called it "a backward and un-American policy" that fails to improve national security.

The administration will be limited in its ability to use Tuesday's ruling to back up its domestic immigration-enforcement efforts.

One Democrat, Sen. Chris Murphy of CT, has proposed legislation to block funding for enforcing the ban. At the White House, President Trump declared victory.

He also says he's planning to push for more funding for his promised border wall and that he'll be discussing the issue with lawmakers Tuesday. The couple was detained for several hours after crossing from Canada into the USA on the day Trump issued the first travel ban.

Lourdes peines pour les "révoltés du Rif" — Maroc
Des appels à la grève générale circulent sur les réseaux sociaux, avec des images de commerces fermés, mais il est difficile d'évaluer l'impact du mot d'ordre.

At the heart of this case were Trump's tweets and past statements as a candidate that he would impose a Muslim ban if elected president.

"Like the Korematsu decision that upheld Japanese internment camps or Plessy v. Ferguson that established 'separate but equal, ' this decision will someday serve as a marker of shame", Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, tweeted.

The travel ban was first issued on 27th January 2017, banning the entry of people from seven Muslim majority countries for 90 days.

But members from the Japanese American Citizens League - who said they were gathered to support their Muslim allies - wanted to tell the Supreme Court they believe that the ruling isn't making history; it is instead allowing history to repeat itself.

But the judge was careful not to endorse Mr Trump's provocative statements about immigration in general and Muslims in particular.

Still, Frenzen and other experts cautioned that the standard the Supreme Court adopted in its 5-4 ruling was highly deferential to the president. It's shameful that this bigoted president is getting away with imposing a poorly disguised religious test for entrance into our country. "And we should be setting a standard on this planet of what humanity should be about".

Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrant Rights Project called the ruling one of the court's "great failures".

Coons, of DE, is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Allowing discrimination to emanate from our nation's highest office undermines the Constitution and our values as a nation.

Hundreds of people gathered in New York City's Foley Square on Tuesday evening to decry the Supreme Court decision.

"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who can not be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices", Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. He also rejected the challengers' claim of anti-Muslim bias.

The court's much anticipated decision in the last case it heard this term reversed a series of lower court decisions that had struck down the ban as Illegal or unconstitutional.

Trump appeals this decision - this time to the Supreme Court.

Comments