Supreme court backs Trump on travel ban targeting Muslim-majority nations

Supreme Court Upholds Donald Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0, Says POTUS ‘Possesses An Extraordinary Power’

Supreme Court Upholds Donald Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0, Says POTUS ‘Possesses An Extraordinary Power’

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban that targets several mostly-Muslim countries, prompting concern from experts about how this will harm the Muslim community as well as MA industries.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Trump's stated animus toward Muslims does not affect his power to determine immigration policy.

Roberts wrote that the plaintiffs in the case - the state of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, and three residents of the state - failed to demonstrate that the travel order "violates" the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars favoring one religion over another. 'Public universities remain deeply concerned about this misguided travel ban and the message it sends to all global students and scholars who have always been drawn to U.S. universities to undertake studies, conduct research and teach students at our world-leading institutions'.

"We are deeply disappointed in the Court's decision", Association of American Medical Colleges President and CEO Darrell G. Kirch, MD, said in a statement released shortly after the 5-4 ruling.

Their opinions-Roberts writing for the 5-4 majority Tuesday, and Sotomayor for the dissent-revealed a rift on the bench over how much the president's pre- and post-inauguration statements about the travel ban and Muslims should have factored into the decision. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of stlucianewsonline.com, its sponsors or advertisers.

The ban prohibits entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. But the high court on December 4 allowed it to go fully into effect while the legal challenge continued.

He had repeatedly questioned the loyalty of Muslim immigrants and after a 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, California, used his campaign to propose a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

In dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there were "stark parallels" with the court's now discredited 1944 decision that upheld United States internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who was born in Japan, both compared the ban and the ruling to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

The third-ranking House Republican, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, calls it a "huge victory" for Trump's plan to strengthen national security "by keeping terrorists out of America".




Rights groups immediately criticised the ruling.

The court's decision "swallows wholesale government lawyers' flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president's own explanation for his actions", Mr Jadwat added. The ride-sharing company won a court case to continue operating after London's transport authority said it was not "fit and proper".

The Trump administration has not publicly discussed any plans for future travel bans targeting additional countries.

Those restrictions were not challenged in court. It originally included travelers from Chad, but those restrictions were lifted in April after the US determined that Chadian officials had "sufficiently improved" the country's performance on passport and border controls.

"This is a great victory for our Constitution", Trump said in his remarks after the Supreme Court upheld his September travel ban on eight countries - Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.

The five court justices said they took the president's order on its face, and separated it from his more bombastic anti-Muslim comments made on the presidential campaign trail and via Twitter.

The administration argued that Travel Ban 3.0 was vetted by multiple agencies and was based on a review of foreign policy, not religion.

The challengers to the ban asserted that Trump's statements crossed a constitutional line, Roberts said.

Recommended News

We are pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news.
Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper.
Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.