US Supreme Court Allows Trump Refugee Ban to Continue

Supreme Court Justice Stays Appeals Court Ruling Limiting Trump Travel Ban

Supreme Court Justice Stays Appeals Court Ruling Limiting Trump Travel Ban

At issue is whether the president can block a group of about 24,000 refugees, who have assurances from sponsors, from entering the United States.

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the White House must set the determination for refugee admissions every year - and Trump capped the number at 50,000 in January when he issued his executive order banning travel from seven majority-Muslim countries.

In June, the top court allowed parts of the travel ban to go into effect while saying those who have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" should be exempted.

In a brief order and with no dissents, the justices reversed rulings by a federal judge in Hawaii and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The ruling would have taken effect Tuesday without the high court's intervention.

The appeals court also upheld another part of the judge's ruling that applies to the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The high court's unsigned, one-sentence order agreed with the administration, at least for now. And as Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN on Tuesday, this particular ruling isn't really an indication on how the court will rule in October.

If that order was not, in fact, meant to be temporary only, then it could be in effect until the court holds its hearing next month on the legality of the Trump order. The US Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the administration to maintain its policy on refugees.

The Justice Department this week asked the Supreme Court to step in again - although only to block refugees, not grandparents and other relatives beyond the nuclear family. If he lets the bans dissolve on their own, the Supreme Court might be happy to cancel their October 10th affair and let the order meet its end with a whimper, rather than a bang.

The government had repeatedly argued that merely possessing such an assurance of resettlement does not give those refugees a sufficient link to this country to enable them to enter. The measure was supposed to have been temporary - lasting 90 days for citizens of the six affected countries, and 120 days for refugees.

In response, lawyers for Hawaii, which is challenging the travel ban, said the administration was mistaking form for substance.

The South Dakota Supreme Court has denied a request to hear an appeal in a case involving the controversial federal immigrant-investor program known as EB-5.

Notícias recomendadas

We are pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news.
Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper.
Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.