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.

Shkreli's fraud trial starts slowly as potential jurors confess hatred for him
One woman said that people who invest in the stock market know that it's a "scam", and said she would "never convict" Shkreli. Another man booted said he was a pharmacist with three decades of experience in the drug business.

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.

Senate health bill would leave 22 million more uninsured by 2026
Unlike the first House bill, the Senate did not wait for the floor to debate before pulling the plug. All four said last week they'd oppose the bill without changes, as did Heller.

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.

National Column: South Korea's bold plan for dealing with the North
With South Korea's economy struggling to sustain growth, China is leveraging its position by registering its opposition to THAAD . Moon's camp can take a lesson from Trump's meeting with Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc, where framing was key.

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