US Supreme Court reinstates Trump travel ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has just announced it will grant President Donald Trump's request to review cases related to his Muslim travel ban.

"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 wrote.

Part of President Trump's refugee and travel ban can now go into effect.

The court is letting the administration mostly enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries. All six have been designated as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States.

The first executive order was issued one week into his term, and sought to bar people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.

The justices will hear full arguments in the October.

The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.

The court's decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration - the president's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban".

Trump rolled out a travel ban just a week after his January 20 inauguration, but lower federal courts have blocked it and a revised version - and one court also has blocked a 120-day halt on refugee arrivals in the United States.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented with Justice Samuel Alito and newly-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, saying the court didn't go far enough.

Facebook Moving Ahead With Original TV
However, the one thing which will not change will be Facebook's commitment to owning as much of the content as possible. The company is also open to hosting other, less costly episodes.

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security", the president said in a statement. He said in a statement that his "number one responsibility" is to keep Americans safe. The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name.

"This order, properly construed, should really allow for only the narrowest implementation of any part of the ban".

The imam of a Hawaii mosque who is a plaintiff in the state's challenge to the travel ban says he hopes his Syrian mother-in-law will be granted a visa.

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are USA permanent residents, known as green card holders.

Thomas criticized the decision to keep the injunctions in place for what he called "an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals overseas", saying it places a burden on officials to determine who has a "bona fide relationship" with a person or organization in the U.S.

Those who would qualify for travel to the United States would include: + Students who have been admitted to a university + A foreign national who wants to visit a family member + Someone who has accepted a job in the U.S. + An academic who has been invited to give a lecture.

Earlier this year, two federal appeals courts had blocked Trump's order.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was "rooted in religious animus" toward Muslims and pointed to Trump's campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously that the ban violated federal immigration law by targeting people from certain countries without improving national security.

Related news