As the third and latest iteration of President Donald Trump’s travel ban remains tied up in lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the order can go into effect even amid the continuing legal battles.

Trump issued this most recent order in September, barring certain travelers from Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, Chad, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Six of these eight nations are Muslim-majority countries, and per The New York Times, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco has argued that the ban falls under the President’s “broad constitutional and statutory powers to control immigration.” Though the specifics of the restrictions vary among the eight nations, in most circumstances, citizens will be prohibited from studying, working, vacationing, or permanently relocating to the U.S.

Already, two federal appellate courts in Maryland and Hawaii have blocked major portions of the ban, particularly as they affect travelers who have “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”—like a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother- or sister-in-law, cousin, nephew, niece, or grandchild. In June, Trump’s second travel ban was allowed to go into effect after the Supreme Court reached a compromise and allowed individuals who fell into the “bona fide” category to travel to the U.S. (That version of the ban was only temporary and expired earlier this year.)

But by issuing that third order, Trump attempted to circumvent the standards set in place by the previous ruling. And now, the administration is once again challenging the lower court rulings and brought their latest case to the Supreme Court in an effort to see the newest ban implemented while the appeals process continues.

Two Supreme Court Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor—opposed the White House’s request and did not want to allow the ban to go into effect. As the administration prepares to once again appeal their case, the Supreme Court called on these lower courts to promptly decide on the case so a final ruling could be issued before the Court’s current term ends next June.

Source link