Few answers on Trump travel ban as launch deadline looms

Share

The entire Court, even the four liberals, agreed to hear the Trump Administration's appeal of appellate-court rulings blocking its immigration travel ban, and the Justices allowed almost all of the 90-day ban to proceed in the meantime.

The prominent global human rights group urged the US Congress on Monday to nullify the top court's ruling that allows Trump's executive order to take effect until it hears arguments on the travel ban in October. Within 24 hours, the state of Hawaii filed a lawsuit before the ban was blocked nationwide a week later, mere hours before it was set to take effect. The 90-day ban is necessary to allow an internal review of screening procedures for visa applicants from the countries, the administration says.

The Court consolidated the travel ban cases from the 4th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and scheduled oral arguments for the first session of the Court's next term, which begins in October.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday made a decision to review lower court rulings on the travel ban when it reconvenes in October.

Florida beats LSU 6-1 at CWS for 1st national championship
LSU had an opportunity in the fourth inning when Antoine Duplantis and Greg Deichmann got back to back hits to open the inning. Newman threw scoreless innings in the eighth and ninth.Byrne relieved Singer after Deichmann led off the eighth with a double.

The Supreme Court on Monday chose to uphold the executive order for nationals of the affected nations unless they have a genuine relationship with a person or body in the US.

"The court went out of its way to not tip its hand as to how it will rule on the ultimate issue, which is whether the president has the power to do this". The travel ban also caps the number of refugees allowed to enter the U.S.at 50,000 a year. "As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the objective of evading [the travel ban]", the Supreme Court decision said.

That includes foreign nationals with familial connections in the US, students who have already been admitted into an American university, workers with existing job offers in the USA and lecturers who have accepted invitations to conferences in the U.S.

Government lawyers were working on guidelines Tuesday, one day after the Supreme Court partially reinstated the ban ahead of hearing arguments in October. It's also possible the travel ban case could be moot by the time the Supreme Court is ready to hear it.

Amazon Buys Whole Foods
Some investors may be wondering whether Amazon could disrupt grocery stores the way it upended the bookstore business. Whole Food recently opened a store in the city in the former Hahne & Co. building between Broad and Halsey Streets.

Since the US began its system of vetting refugees in 1980, not a single person accepted as a refugee has been involved in a successful deadly attack on the United States.

Can you explain the Supreme Court's decision?

In a partial dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said he anxious that "the court's remedy will prove unworkable" and "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".

But the other six kept blocking it as it applies to those traveling to the USA on employment, student or family immigrant visas as well as other cases where the traveler can show a "bona fide" connection to the U.S.

Be ready with 20 walls for Venezuelans — Maduro to Trump
Venezuela has been rocked by violent anti-government protests in recent months that have left scores dead. Opposition leaders have always been calling on Venezuela's security forces to stop obeying Maduro.

Mr Trump issued his first version of the travel ban in January, sparking worldwide protests and chaos at airports across America. But for clarity, it should declare the executive order unconstitutional for its lack of basis in fact, if not for its obvious intent to discriminate against Muslim refugees from wars in which we are combatants.

Share