Trump signed the order as a replacement for a January 27 order issued a week after he became president, but it was also blocked by federal courts.
U.S. president Donald Trump’s travel ban has been partly reinstated with a full hearing to follow in the autumn.
In the meantime, the court announced June 26, that some “foreign nationals” will be barred from entering the country, but decisions will be made depending on the applicant’s previous relationships with a person or institution in the U.S. Some called it a watered-down version of what the administration is seeking. The effect on refugees could be greater because they are less likely to have family, school or business relationships in the United States.
The New York Immigration Coalition, another fierce opponent, said the ruling created more confusion by using the term ‘bona fide relationship, ‘ which “agencies and individuals will struggle to make sense of”.
While the ban did not single out Muslims, lower court judges cited Trump’s repeated campaign statements that he meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States.
What did the court decide about Trump’s travel ban?
Mr Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by the courts.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said implementation of the travel order “will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry”.
The decision came after months of the order being stalled in federal courts, with lawsuit after lawsuit claiming it discriminates against Muslims.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to reinstate much of President Trump’s travel ban the lower courts had previously blocked.
By the time the Supreme Court hears arguments on the travel ban, its 90-day life will have expired and the Trump administration will need to give the court a reason as to why it should be continued.
The justices tried Monday to give some immediate clarity to USA policy until it rules in two cases presenting broader challenges to the travel ban as an unconstitutional discrimination against religion because it unfairly targets Muslims.
The court’s majority laid out the “bona fide” relationships it had in mind. “By agreeing to review these challenges, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled today that it rejects the Administration’s argument”, Ferguson said.
“That is the question that must be answered, because the selection of Muslim majority countries by the administration was purposeful and continues to serve as a recruitment tool for extremist groups”, Cardin said, adding “there will be people hurt because of the refugee ban”.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a concurrence arguing that the Court should have lifted the lower-court injunctions in toto.