Travel ruling could boost other immigration suits

Posted June 30, 2018

Booker, of New Jersey, said Trump has "tried multiple times" to impose a religious test on entry to the country, "and his efforts have been diluted by the court system".

"We were hoping that at least the Supreme Court would rule at least for fair play and let us be reunited with our families", said Salem, who came to the USA eight years ago and has since become a citizen.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissenting opinion, contended the court was employing the "same unsafe logic underlying" the decision on the detainment of Japanese-Americans.

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

"Bannon knew that people who were opposed to this policy would be enraged, and majority would have Saturday and Sunday off from work, so they could get out there and they could protest and they could get angry", says Joshua Green of Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

There should be a healthy debate about the travel ban, the president's controversial approach to immigration, and the court's role in either enabling or restraining Trump policies. Our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch.

Despite Trump's claim that the ban was "not a Muslim ban", he noted an exception to the travel restrictions for Christians coming from these countries.

More news: Suarez inspires Uruguay to win over Russian Federation

Writing for the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said the ruling refutes allegations that the order is a religiously-motivated Muslim ban. It restricts entry from seven countries, though some very slightly, like Venezuela.

The first executive order January 27, 2017, suspended travel for 90 days from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and blocked refugees for 120 days. Chad was originally on the list but it was recently removed after having met baseline security requirements.

"It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns", Sotomayor wrote.

Lower American courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the United States top court reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced today. "One day, this nation and Court will look back and regret this ruling that legalized discrimination", said Attorney General Becerra.

In February 2017, Washington State filed the first lawsuit against the ban with support from the ACLU, detailing the grave effect the ban already had had on students, participants in exchange programs and refugees from the banned countries.

The second ban expired, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Trump administration's appeals in relation to the prohibition.

"I think it's clear that the history of this travel ban is one that is not to credit of the United States", Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, told CNN.

More news: Japanese took initiative to clean the stadium after the Japan-Senegal match

Why it's suspended: The Venezuelan government fails to adequately share public-safety and terrorism-related information, the Trump administration said.

On December 18, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled it was a "military necessity" to detain people of Japanese descent during the war and argued the order was not based on race.

The president's tweets, campaign speeches and statements-as well as those of his advisers-were, after all, "at the heart of plaintiffs' case" that the president's executive order violated the First Amendment's establishment clause, as the majority opinion reads.

The ruling means that most people seeking to enter the United States from the affected countries will need to navigate an opaque waiver process.

Trump glossed over the fact that the court's decision applied to the third version of his travel ban, not the original and far more sweeping version.

"Overturning Korematsu to uphold a Muslim ban is a vile insult to the Japanese Americans who were interned during WWII", freelance journalist Mari Uyehara tweeted. This 5-to-4 conservative majority says the travel ban isn't discriminatory because it doesn't use the word "Muslim".

More news: Messi 'not guilty of anything', insists Maradona