Trump’s Travel Ban Partially Reinstated by Supreme Court, ACLU Immediately Challenges
By Daniel Gil/ Contributing Writer
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would uphold a revised version of President Trump’s travel ban on six nations and would review the case in full later this fall; the American Civil Liberties Union responded immediately by saying they would challenge the decision in court.
The notable revision to the ban is that nationals from Libya, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan who had a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” would be excluded from the ban. This would include nationals who would want to live or visit a family member in the U.S. or students from the aforementioned countries who have been admitted to American universities.
The ban, set to go in place 72 hours following the court’s decision, will bar the six nations’ immigrants from entering the United States for 90 days and will also halt the intake of refugees for 120 days, with the exceptions made by the court.
In a press release sent out Monday, the ACLU, announced it would challenge the decision along with the ACLU Maryland, and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of the HIAS, the International Refugee Assistance Project, the Middle East Studies Association, and individuals affected by the ban.
Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the appellate case, said in the statement, “President Trump’s Muslim ban violates the fundamental constitutional principle that government cannot favor or disfavor any one religion. Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down.”
The Supreme Court will be reviewing the full extent of the President’s powers with respect to immigration when they reconvene in October. However, the court noted they “fully expect” the government to be capable of reviewing the vetting procedures for immigrants within the 90 day period.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion, along with Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Neil Gorsuch, “Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country.” Justice Thomas continued by saying that the “compromise” would open a “flood of litigation” until the case be resolved.
The travel ban has been a focal point of contention between civil rights organizations and the White House since its inception directly following Trump’s swearing in as President. Rights groups and activists argued the ban was an unconstitutional ban on Muslims and not based not solely on nationality. Trump’s administration, along with the Department of Homeland Security have argued the ban was put in place to help safeguard the country against terrorist threats abroad.
The original ban was met with mass national and international protest and was eventually struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of U.S. Appeals in January. In March, a second revised version of the ban which was struck down by a Hawaii federal judge.