Travel ban ruling 'a great victory' for the Constitution

Travel ban ruling 'a great victory' for the Constitution

Travel ban ruling 'a great victory' for the Constitution

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump's controversial ban on travellers from five mostly Muslim countries - a major victory for the Republican leader after atortuous legal battle.

Bahramipanah, the Iranian woman who lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan, had hoped the Supreme Court would end the ban for good this time so her mother would be able to come to the celebrate Bahramipanah's birthday next week.

Writing for the majority in the decision on the third version, Chief Justice John Roberts cited a law passed by Congress that allows a president to suspend entry to foreigners, or entire classes of foreigners, if he deems their entry "detrimental to the interests of the United States". Dr. Mansoor is the president of the Islamic Association of Greater Hartford.

In the ruling, Roberts officially repudiated the 1944 internment decision and rejected any comparison between the cases, saying that the war-era practice was "objectively unlawful and outside the scope of presidential authority".

The challengers have argued that the policy was motivated by Mr Trump's enmity towards Muslims and urged courts to take into account his inflammatory comments during the 2016 presidential campaign.

"We express no view on the soundness of the policy", Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Hundreds of people jammed Campus Martius Park in Detroit on Tuesday evening, to protest the U.S.

This was partially in response to the dissenting opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which contended the ruling on Trump's travel ban has "stark parallels" with the "reasoning" behind the decision made regarding Korematsu.

In both cases, "the Government invoked an ill-defined national-security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion", Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there were "stark parallels" with the court's now discredited 1944 decision that upheld USA internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two. Roberts responded in his opinion that "Korematsu has nothing to do with this case" and "was gravely wrong the day it was decided".

Every appellate court that had considered the injunctions of this and the two prior iterations of President Trump's Muslim bans-including the Fourth Circuit in International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v. Trump, in which the IRAP is a named plaintiff and co-counsel-had upheld the injunctions.

In September 2017, Trump issued a proclamation restricting the ability of citizens from Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen to travel to the United States.

It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. The latest on US immigration row ■ US Customsand Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said migrant parents entering US illegally would no longer be referred for prosecution - a key part of the "zero tolerance" policy.

The president could implement similar restrictions on more Muslim countries with ties to terrorism, on Central American countries riddled with drug cartels, and other nations that his administration claims are posing an ongoing threat to USA security.

The challengers, though, argued that the court could just ignore all that has happened, beginning with Mr Trump's campaign tweets to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States.

In the May 2017 documentary Bannon's War, FRONTLINE went inside the chaotic rollout of President Trump's initial suspension of travel into the refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim nations on January 27, 2017. He issued his first version just a week after taking office, though it was quickly halted by the courts.

The case has been central to the White House immigration policy, presenting a key test of Trump's campaign promise to restrict immigration and secure US borders.

"This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country", he said.

Related news