For the first time since January, the Trump administration can implement its ban as written, while the courts continue to weigh the lawsuit against it.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Trump administration is allowed to stop certain groups of people from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States — including relatives of US citizens, and people with job offers from US businesses — until the court gets a chance to hear the lawsuits against the Trump administration over the ban.
Prior to the Monday ruling, the executive order the administration released in September — its third version of a “travel ban,” and the first designed to be in effect indefinitely — was in effect only for certain people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen who did not have “bona fide relationships” with people or businesses in the United States. With Monday’s ruling, however, even those people who do have “bona fide relationships” can be denied visas or banned from entering the US. (Bans on some people from Venezuela and North Korea were allowed to go into effect without incident.)
The Supreme Court’s ruling wasn’t unanimous: Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor indicated they would have allowed the limits on the ban to stay in place. But it’s the first unalloyed victory the Trump administration has had in nearly 11 months of litigation on the travel ban.
After months of embarrassing smack-downs from judges, the administration might finally have come up with a version of the travel ban that fits within the broad powers the courts have given the executive branch to make immigration policy, without having to answer too many questions about why.
This isn’t the travel ban you remember from January anymore
Since we’re now on the third version of the Trump administration’s travel ban, a brief Read More Here