ishtartv.com - usatoday.com
Richard
Wolf and Alan Gomez, June 26, 2017
WASHINGTON
— The Supreme Court agreed Monday to let President Trump's immigration
travel ban go into effect for some travelers, reversing the actions of lower
federal courts that had put the controversial policy completely on hold.
The
court also agreed to hear the case involving travelers from six predominantly
Muslim countries and international refugees in October, leaving open
the chance that it could reverse Monday's verdict if challengers can prove the
ban is illegal or unconstitutional.
The
justices' action gives Trump a partial victory following a string of
defeats from coast to coast, and he wasted no time applauding it.
"Today's
unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national
security," Trump said in a statement. "It allows the travel
suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to
become largely effective."
That
was immediately contested by immigrant rights and civil liberties groups
challenging the travel ban, who argued that most would-be travelers cannot be
barred under the court's compromise ruling. "The hope is that this really
only impacts a very small number of people,” said Becca Heller, director of
the International Refugee Assistance Project.
Of
the more than 100,000 people who legally entered the U.S. from the six
countries last year, most would have qualified to enter under the Supreme
Court's criteria, according to State Department data. Nearly 30,000 had
immigrant visas, and more than 25,000 arrived as refugees matched up with
non-profit groups or sponsor families.
Going
forward, however, travelers in a wide range of visa categories will have to
prove their connection to a U.S. organization or individual in order to avoid
the ban – at least until the Supreme Court hears and decides the overall
dispute.
"The
government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to
do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign
national and the United States," the court said.
On
the other hand, it said the ban "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."
Some
in, some out
Until
Monday, the travel ban had been under siege in federal courts. Some courts
struck it down as a form of religious discrimination against Muslims. Others
said it showed bias based on nationality and exceeded the president's authority
without a firm national security justification.
The
high court's action, therefore, represents a setback for immigration rights and
civil liberties groups that had bottled up two executive orders through legal
action, exacerbating the president's battles with federal courts that began
during the election campaign.
The
court's action was written without an author, but with a partial dissent from
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who would have given
Trump a complete victory by allowing the ban to apply to all travelers.
"The
government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits
-- that is, that the judgments below will be reversed,' 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.'"
The
Supreme Court also upheld a lower court's decision to allow the
administration to finally begin a global review of vetting procedures used to
screen foreign travelers. The White House has said that review was the most
important component of Trump's executive order, and that the travel ban was
merely an effort to free resources to conduct the review.
The
Department of Homeland Security said it officially began that review on June
19.
The
court's action isn't expected to set off the kind of chaos seen around the
world when Trump signed the first travel ban into effect on Jan. 27. That
executive order, which went into effect immediately, barred all travelers
from seven countries from entering the U.S. even if they had green cards, valid
visas or refugee status. It led to at least 746 people temporarily
detained at U.S. airports, some being deported back to their home countries,
and untold numbers of others prevented from boarding their flights at airports
overseas.
The
revised travel ban, with the court's limitations, cannot go into effect before
Thursday at the earliest, based on a memorandum recently signed by the
president.
A
chaotic history
From
the very beginning, the travel ban has led to chaos at U.S. airports and
courthouses across the country.
Because
visa and green card holders were included in the first ban, it immediately
produced confusion and protests at U.S. airports. Within days, federal judges
in New York and Boston intervened, and a third federal judge in Seattle issued
a nationwide injunction in early February.
Trump
unveiled a revised order in March that smoothed out some of the original
ban's rougher edges and narrowed the list of countries to include Iran, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It called for a 90-day ban on travelers from
six countries and 120 days for refugees, but excluded visa and green card
holders, deleted a section that gave preference to Christian minorities, and
included a waiver process for those claiming undue hardship.
That
order was blocked by a federal
judge in Hawaii hours before it was to go into effect on March
16, as well as by another
federal judge in Maryland. The Justice Department appealed both rulings,
leading to similar slap-downs by federal appeals courts in Richmond May 25 and
San Francisco June 12.
As
it reached the Supreme Court, the travel ban had been struck down on
both constitutional and statutory grounds. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 10-3 that it discriminated
against Muslims by targeting only countries with overwhelmingly large Muslim
majorities. But a three-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously that the ban
violated federal immigration law by targeting people from certain countries
without improving national security.
Through all
the defeats, Trump was forced to play on what amounts to his
opponents' home turf: The 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, is dominated
by President
Bill Clinton's nominees. The 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, is dominated
by President
Barack Obama's nominees. All 13 judges on those two courts who voted to
strike down the revised travel ban were appointed by Democratic presidents.
By
contrast, the Supreme Court includes five justices named by Republican
presidents and four by Democrats. Chief Justice John Roberts is a strong
proponent of executive authority, particularly in foreign affairs. Alito has
spent his entire career working for the government. Justice Anthony Kennedy
wrote in a 2015 immigration case that a "legitimate and bona fide"
reason for denying entry to the United States can pass muster. Gorsuch is
a stickler
for the written text of statutes — and banning Muslims isn't
mentioned in Trump's executive order. Thomas is the most conservative of all.
Despite
those advantages, Trump at times has been his own worst enemy. His presidential
campaign speeches, official statements and tweets gave opponents
of the ban fodder for their challenges -- from Trump's vow in 2015 to
seek "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United
States" to his lament this month that his lawyers should have pushed for a
"much tougher version" rather than the "politically
correct" order he signed in March.
|