Supreme Court Allows Part of President Trump Travel Ban
Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to allow President Trump’s ban on a limited basis. The justices called for arguments on the travel ban during the court’s first session in October.
Arguments will be heard on the ban—which denied visas to citizens of six majority Muslim countries and paused admission of refugees from across the globe—and in the meantime, the justices limited the directive’s impact on foreigners with clear ties to individuals, businesses or organizations in the United States.
While three of the Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, admitted that they would have allowed the entirety of Trump’s travel ban to take effect while the court reviews the case; after five months of legal uncertainty, the court moved forward with the decision to impose significant limitations on the ban.
For example, people here in the U.S. for college admission, offered work by American businesses or with other formal connections may be exempt from President Trump’s new visa restrictions. Individuals are required to have close family ties to be allowed to enter the U.S.
President Trump signed the rewritten order on March 6 which removed Iraq from the list of seven countries targeted for a 90-day suspension of visa issuance, leaving Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The part of the order that remained the same was the halt to refugee admissions.
President Trump’s initial White House statement hailed the court’s action as “a clear victory for our national security.” The President concluded, “As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm.” President Trump stated, “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”
This is an impressive victory for President Trump’s agenda to make our country safer and it will only get better from this point onward.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION.
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW.
LIKE AND SHARE THIS PAGE
For years, conservative figures, small business owners, and everyday citizens have argued that the federal legal apparatus served as a partisan weapon. Now, the administration is turning that grievance into direct federal action.