Trump's revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation's refugee program for 120 days. The travel ban's persistence as a legal issue suggests that the Trump administration is contemplating more than temporary restrictions on travel and refugee admissions. The action Monday, June 26, 2017, is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.
But Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented from part of the opinion regarding the decision and stated a full-fledged ban should be put into effect despite the fact whether people had a "bona fide relationship" in the US, as per the document. The court's opinion explained the kinds of relationships people from the six countries must demonstrate to obtain a US visa. "An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded", the court said. Both rulings were sustained by separate appeals courts. The lower courts said the ban was discriminatory towards Muslims and violated federal immigration law.
"We see the 9-0 decision with zero dissensions as a slap in the face to those that would use the courts with a political agenda to undermine the security of USA citizens", Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka told KTAR News 92.3 FM's Arizona's Morning News on Tuesday.
- A lecturer invited to address an American audience.
A broad interpretation, for example, could allow for a contract or reservation with a rental auto agency or hotel in the United States to be considered legitimate relationship, the officials said.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to disclose the information. The court clarified that a "close familial relationship" would exempt an individual who would otherwise be covered by the EO. He said his group has no idea how the administration plans to judge family relationships and a hard line could mean a significant number of Iranians will be kept out the country for the time being.
The court also agreed to hear the government's appeal of lower courts that had prevented the ban from going into place.
Like the fate of would-be tourists and scholars, the immediate future for refugees is murky.
The court chose to reinstate part of the travel ban on Monday.
State courts had ruled against the businessman. Three justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch - said they would have allowed the travel ban to take effect as written.
He says "the problem for some is terrorism and support for terrorism is measured by the amount of money they spend on buying arms from the U.S".
Mr Trump issued his first version of the travel ban in January, sparking worldwide protests and chaos at airports across America. A federal court blocked it about a week later.
The countries targeted were on a list drawn up by Barack Obama's government of places whose authorities had poor data on their own citizens, making it hard to vet visa applicants.
The State Department said it would begin enforcing the travel ban "in a professional, organised and timely way" within 72 hours, in line with a memorandum signed by Trump earlier this month.