American Politics

Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban From Barbarian Nations #Trump #TravelBan

The Supreme Court has upheld President Trump’s travel ban case on Tuesday by a 5-4 vote, saying in its opinion that the order is “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority.”

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court’s first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy.

“The president lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings – following a worldwide, multi-agency review – that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest,” Roberts wrote in the opinion.

The court may have signaled its eventual approval in December, when the justices allowed the policy to take full effect even as the court fight continued and lower courts had ruled it out of bounds.

Trending: Parts of National Park Closed When Massive Fissure Opens On Yellowstone Caldera #volcano #Yellowstone

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL DECISION

Travel ban decision

In April, President Trump appeared likely to win his argument, when the case was heard by the high court in April. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy both signaled support for the travel policy in arguments. The ban’s challengers almost certainly needed one of those two justices in order to strike down the ban on travelers from several mostly Muslim countries.

The justices voted in December to allow the policy to take full effect pending their full consideration, The Hill reports.

Listen to oral arguments by the Supreme Court here.

CLICK HERE FOR RELATED NEWS.

Islamocommunist Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), one of two Muslim members of Congress, tweeted that he was saddened by the decision.

“Today’s decision undermines the core value of religious tolerance on which America was founded,” he said in a statement. “I am deeply disappointed that this ruling gives legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia.”

The Trump administration asked the court to reverse lower court rulings that would strike down the ban.

The Supreme Court also considered whether the president can indefinitely keep people out of the country based on nationality, and it also looked at whether the policy is aimed at excluding Muslims from the United States.

Kennedy challenged lawyer Neal Katyal, representing the challengers, about whether the ban would be unending. He said the policy’s call for a report every six months “indicates there’ll be a reassessment” from time to time.

The travel ban was the first Trump policy to undergo a full-blown Supreme Court review. The justices examined the third version of a policy that Mr. Trump first rolled out a week after taking office, triggering chaos and protests across the U.S. as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. The first version was blocked by courts and withdrawn. Its replacement was allowed to take partial effect, but expired in September.

The current version is indefinite and now applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority-Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving “its identity-management and information sharing practices,” Mr. Trump said in a proclamation.

The administration argued that courts have no role to play because the president has broad powers over immigration and national security, and foreigners have no right to enter the country.

The challengers argued that his policy amounts to the Muslim ban that Mr. Trump called for as a candidate, violating the Constitution’s prohibition against religious bias.

IF YOU ENJOYED THIS NEWS STORY, CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.

Mr Americana, Overpasses News Desk
June 26th, 2018

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.