SCOTUS Reinstates Portions of Travel Ban Until They Review It


It may be temporary, but on Monday, the SCOTUS reinstated parts of Trump’s Travel Ban until the time they hear the case, saying the Appellate Court rulings were too broad. In a 7-2 ruling, they allowed the ban to go into effect. The case will come before the court sometime in October.

In the meantime…

The travel ban on persons coming to the United States from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen was set for only 90 days. It is unclear now, since the Supreme Court has reinstated most of it, whether some parts will be continued by the time they hear the case. Ninety days is 3 months. October is slightly over 3 months away. Interesting timing.

The ban also blocked refugees coming to the US from those same countries for 120 days, or 4 months, in order to institute stronger vetting procedures. Both bans were immediately blocked before they could go into effect in March.

Monday’s Supreme Court opinion stated that if a person could demonstrate  “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity” in the U.S., they would be an exception to the ban. In other words, if a person has legitimate ties to the US, the ban can’t affect them.

The President has stated that when cleared by the court, enforcement would begin 72 hours later.

The ban that was blocked applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are U.S. permanent residents (green card holders). It made allowances for refugees already approved, or people returning to the US to resume work, school, visit spouses, etc. 

The blocks to the President’s plan

The lower appellate courts (riddled with Obama appointees) said that Trump’s travel ban was rooted in anti-religious bias. It was never a “Muslim ban,” it was a terrorist ban. If enemies of the United States can come in easily, then the whole purpose of the immigration system is defeated.

CBS News reported about the lower courts rulings,

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims and pointed to Mr. 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. The ban “stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,” the chief judge of the circuit, Roger L. Gregory wrote.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the travel policy does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination. That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends Sept. 30.

The ban was no different than that instituted by other Presidents in times of emergency. But the lower court’s blocks were a constant wall of obstruction to the Trump Administration. Hopefully this will keep America from becoming like Europe.

H/T Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children


If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

Faye Higbee

Faye Higbee is the columnist manager for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. She has been writing at Conservative Firing Line since 2013 as well. She is also a published author.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×