Samedi, 5 Décembre 2020
Dernières nouvelles
Principale » Supreme Court revives parts of Trump travel ban order

Supreme Court revives parts of Trump travel ban order

26 Juin 2017

The Supreme Court said today that it will consider arguments in the case against President Donald Trump's travel ban this fall.

The partial stay to the injunction does not apply to "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States", which applies to family members with USA citizenship or green cards, universities, and companies applying for visas on an employee's behalf.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch felt the partial reinforcement of the travel ban did not go far enough, according to a separate opinion written by Thomas and joined by Alito and Gorsuch.

The court handled the refugee ban in a similar way, allowing the government to exclude from the United States refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity. "All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO-2". Appeals courts in the 9th and 4th U.S. Circuits have upheld injunctions keeping the travel restrictions from going into effect.

"This is about the executive order itself".

The high court's action, therefore, represents at least a minor setback for immigration rights and civil liberties groups that had bottled up two executive orders through legal action, exacerbating the president's battles with federal courts that began during the election campaign. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, "the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the objective of evading" the travel ban. In its order, the court stated, "the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security".

Turkey rejects Arab terms to Qatar, US says are 'difficult'
On Saturday, Qatar's foreign minister rejected the list of 13 conditions imposed by the four countries. -Stop all contacts with the political opposition in Saudi Arabia , the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain .

A 120-day ban on refugees also is being allowed to take effect on a limited basis. All 13 judges on those two courts who voted to strike down the revised travel ban were appointed by Democratic presidents.

The court also granted an emergency request from Trump's administration to allow another 120-day ban on refugees to come into effect. The Department of Justice appealed both cases, bringing them all the way to the Supreme Court.

In other words, if a person seeking an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa from one of the six affected countries has a genuine connection to people or groups already in the U.S. - who could, potentially, assert their own rights - then they cannot be excluded under the ban. The four liberal justices were silent.

The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals overseas and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry. The revised order also jettisoned language that gave preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, which critics said could be taken as favoring Christians and other religious groups over Muslims.

That order was blocked by a federal judge in Hawaii hours before it was to go into effect on March 16, as well as by another federal judge in Maryland. However, critics called the policy un-American and Islamophobic.