Samedi, 23 Septembre 2017
Dernières nouvelles
Principale » Travel ban, church-state case await action by Supreme Court

Travel ban, church-state case await action by Supreme Court

26 Juin 2017

As the Supreme Court entered its final week of work before a two-month long summer break, a decision is expected on the travel ban from President Donald Trump's administration, reports said.

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 USA - who could, potentially, assert their own rights - then they cannot be excluded under the ban.

The order, which had been halted by lower courts, banned for 90 days entry into the U.S.by nationals from six Muslim-majority countries-Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Here in the US, the four Supreme Court justices who have served for at least 20 years, three of them age 78 or older, seem no closer to leaving their jobs today than they were a decade ago, churning out opinions and traveling far and wide at an enviable clip. It would also ban Syrian refugees from entering the country. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy.

Another case that will be addressed is Hernandez v. Mesa, in which US agents shot a Mexican national in a group of assailants on the Mexican side of the border.

Trump has called his second executive order "watered down", and "politically correct." .

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.

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, along with the newest Justice, Neil Gorsuch, Trump's nominee to the court earlier this year, wanted to lift the entire ban, according to the order".

Germany reach semis as referee needs VAR double-take
Brighton keeper Ryan kept out Sanchez, before Chile drew level in scrappy fashion with 23 minutes remaining. In the group's other game Chile also booked their place into the semifinals after drawing 1-1with Australia.

The White House appealed to the Supreme Court to take up the case on June 1, after a ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide ban on the executive order going into effect.

On one side is his age - a desire to spend more time with his grandchildren is driving any decision, and in many ways he has already established an enduring legacy on the court.

Examples of formal relationships include students accepted to United States universities and an employee who has accepted a job with a company in the USA, the court said. Similar disputes have popped up across the United States.

As for refugees, the court held that a person seeking refuge in the U.S. can claim "concrete hardship" - but in the end, if they "lack any such connection to the United States. the balance tips in favor of the government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security".

The court sided with Perry, ruling 7-2 that he could file his lawsuit in a federal district court instead of first waiting for a federal appeals court to consider part of his case.

The administration has said the travel ban is needed to allow time to implement stronger vetting measures, although it has already rolled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants. In March, two federal judges ruled against the executive order on the grounds that its objective was to "disfavor a particular religion".

The president was unhappy about the March order, calling it a "watered down, politically correct" version of the first one. The revised order was meant to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, which also included Iraq among the nations targeted and a full ban on refugees from Syria.