Hooray, we just got some victory! President Trump’s protection ban will be able to be implemented, minus a couple of details. It may sound like a partial reason to celebrate, but hey, this is just the first round.
The arguments will be heard by the court during the Supreme Court’s first session in October.
The Court appears to recognize the President’s broad authority to limit travel to the US by those who have no direct ties to the US.
“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective,” the president said in a statement.
The the order will take a direct hit on those who are less likely to have connections to the United States.
Three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — said they would have allowed the entirety of Trump’s travel ban to take effect while the court mulls the case.
The people admitted to U.S. universities or hired previously for work by American businesses may be exempt from Trump’s new visa restrictions, the justices concluded. Individuals having a close familial relationship is required.
“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas wrote, adding that it also would invite more litigation.
It’s not clear what action from Trump would be needed for parts of the directive to take effect.
Trump’s March directive said the visa ban would last 90 days and the refugee halt would run for 120 days. After the lower court injunctions, Trump issued a memo saying that no blocked part of his directive takes effect until “72 hours after all applicable injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.”
“To avoid any confusion, the presidential memorandum issued last week will likely be amended to include a discussion of the waiver and reissued,” said Paul Virtue, a partner at law firm MayerBrown and former chief counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals turned down the Trump administration’s initial request to lift the injunction.
“The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.,” President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter earlier this month. It is apparent that the President tried to comply with the 9th Court, but in so doing, they reneged on their request and turned him down.
The rewritten order Trump signed March 6 removed Iraq from the list of seven countries targeted for a 90-day suspension of visa issuance, leaving Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The 120-day halt to refugee admissions remained essentially the same.
Earlier this month, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel also ruled against the revised executive order, but it did so on the narrower ground that Trump hadn’t met the standards Congress set out in law to take the sorts of steps he did. The three judges — all Clinton appointees — left in place the core of the Hawaii judge’s injunction barring
The 9th Circuit did rein in the injunction issued out of Hawaii, giving the Trump administration the go-ahead to move forward with vetting studies and other internal reviews that are required under the presidential directive.
Trump’s more informal public statements about the litigation, often delivered through Twitter, have frequently complicated or undermined the arguments elite Justice Department attorneys were mustering in court to defend the travel ban.
Trump’s reference last month to the revised executive order as a “watered down, politically correct” version of the first undercut the federal government’s position that the revised directive was essentially independent of the first one and lacked any taint of religious discrimination that some saw in the earlier order.
The president’s statement also seemed to bolster critics’ arguments that the March order was indeed a version of the Muslim ban he promised during the campaign.
And Trump’s repeated use of the phrase “travel ban” to describe his orders seems to be at tension with Justice Department arguments that the actions did not amount to a complete change in government policy but only a “temporary pause” in travel while officials shore up the process for checking the backgrounds of those seeking to come to the United States.