Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts To Suck It - Allows White House To Reinstate Travel Ban

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that President Trump's travel ban could be reinstated, overturning rulings from lower courts.

In an unsigned opinion, the court made one exception to the travel ban, saying that it “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a c

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that President Trump's travel ban could be reinstated, overturning rulings from lower courts.

In an unsigned opinion, the court made one exception to the travel ban, saying that it “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Under this revision to the travel ban, travel may not be restricted for people who are visiting family or attending a U.S. university.

The travel ban restricts travel from countries with strong ties to terrorism, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch opposed the Supreme Court's "bona fide relationship" standard, saying that it will only lead to a flood of litigation as to what constitutes a bona fide relationship, according to Washington Post.

Justice Thomas wrote that the provision would “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.”

They also said that the court has already made the “implicit conclusion” that the White House would prevail in the case, saying that the travel ban is within the President's power.

Because the travel ban had been blocked by the lower courts, people have been entering from countries on the ban list through normal procedures. President Trump previously said that the travel ban would be reinstated within 72 hours of a court ruling which allows it to be reinstated.

The Supreme Court said that it would hear the case further when it reconvenes in October, but the case may no longer be relevant as the travel ban was only meant to be temporary while the government reviews it vetting procedures.

Comments

Stories