User login
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a limited version of President Trump’s travel ban to move forward, prohibiting certain foreign nationals from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the country.
The justices’ June 26 order means that travelers from the affected countries who do not have a bona fide relationship with U.S. nationals or U.S. entities may not enter the United States. Conversely, it means that foreign physicians who have accepted a job at a U.S. institution or students who have been accepted to a U.S. medical school will be allowed to take those positions.
“In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” justices wrote in their order. “All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member ... clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the executive order].”
In a dissenting statement, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the full ban should have gone into effect. Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the dissent.
“I agree with the court’s implicit conclusion that the government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the [lower] judgments will be reversed,”Associate Justice Thomas wrote. “The government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its compelling need to provide for the nation’s security. Finally, weighing the government’s interest in preserving national security against the hardships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry into the country, the balance of the equities favors the government. I would thus grant the government’s applications for a stay in their entirety.”
President Trump’s revised executive order, signed March 6, bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from obtaining visas for 90 days and blocks refugees from the affected countries from entering the U.S. for 120 days. The executive measure superseded President Trump’s original Jan. 27 travel ban. The revised order clarified that citizens of the six countries who are legal permanent U.S. residents or who have current visas to enter the country are exempt from the travel prohibition. Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland ruled that the revised order was discriminatory and blocked the order from taking effect, a decision upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Justices will hear oral arguments in the case this fall.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a limited version of President Trump’s travel ban to move forward, prohibiting certain foreign nationals from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the country.
The justices’ June 26 order means that travelers from the affected countries who do not have a bona fide relationship with U.S. nationals or U.S. entities may not enter the United States. Conversely, it means that foreign physicians who have accepted a job at a U.S. institution or students who have been accepted to a U.S. medical school will be allowed to take those positions.
“In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” justices wrote in their order. “All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member ... clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the executive order].”
In a dissenting statement, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the full ban should have gone into effect. Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the dissent.
“I agree with the court’s implicit conclusion that the government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the [lower] judgments will be reversed,”Associate Justice Thomas wrote. “The government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its compelling need to provide for the nation’s security. Finally, weighing the government’s interest in preserving national security against the hardships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry into the country, the balance of the equities favors the government. I would thus grant the government’s applications for a stay in their entirety.”
President Trump’s revised executive order, signed March 6, bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from obtaining visas for 90 days and blocks refugees from the affected countries from entering the U.S. for 120 days. The executive measure superseded President Trump’s original Jan. 27 travel ban. The revised order clarified that citizens of the six countries who are legal permanent U.S. residents or who have current visas to enter the country are exempt from the travel prohibition. Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland ruled that the revised order was discriminatory and blocked the order from taking effect, a decision upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Justices will hear oral arguments in the case this fall.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a limited version of President Trump’s travel ban to move forward, prohibiting certain foreign nationals from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the country.
The justices’ June 26 order means that travelers from the affected countries who do not have a bona fide relationship with U.S. nationals or U.S. entities may not enter the United States. Conversely, it means that foreign physicians who have accepted a job at a U.S. institution or students who have been accepted to a U.S. medical school will be allowed to take those positions.
“In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” justices wrote in their order. “All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member ... clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the executive order].”
In a dissenting statement, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the full ban should have gone into effect. Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the dissent.
“I agree with the court’s implicit conclusion that the government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the [lower] judgments will be reversed,”Associate Justice Thomas wrote. “The government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its compelling need to provide for the nation’s security. Finally, weighing the government’s interest in preserving national security against the hardships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry into the country, the balance of the equities favors the government. I would thus grant the government’s applications for a stay in their entirety.”
President Trump’s revised executive order, signed March 6, bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from obtaining visas for 90 days and blocks refugees from the affected countries from entering the U.S. for 120 days. The executive measure superseded President Trump’s original Jan. 27 travel ban. The revised order clarified that citizens of the six countries who are legal permanent U.S. residents or who have current visas to enter the country are exempt from the travel prohibition. Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland ruled that the revised order was discriminatory and blocked the order from taking effect, a decision upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Justices will hear oral arguments in the case this fall.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med