In a ruling today, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review President Donald Trump’s travel ban in October.
The court’s order said that a “close familial relationship is required” for individuals who wish to live with or visit a family member. When the relationship is with an entity like a university, it must be “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading” the executive order.
The Court said, students and lecturers would have a formal relationship, as would someone who accepted employment with an American company. But it would not apply to someone who “enters into a relationship simply to avoid” the executive order. For example, the order said, “a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.”
The order fulfilled one of the new president’s most controversial campaign promises. But the chaotic weekend that ensued ― dozens of people detained at airports and protests nationwide ― also played an early role in defining the Trump administration as clumsy and disinterested in the details and process of policymaking.
Trump signed the order without letting key officials, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, review it beforehand. Customs and Border Protection agents struggled to interpret whether the order applied to green card holders and to those who arrived carrying valid visas. Protests erupted at airports across the country. Apparently unfazed, Trump told reporters the day after signing the order that the travel restrictions were “working out very nicely,” adding that, “you see it at the airports, you see it all over.”
The confusion ended the night of Jan. 29, when a federal judge in Brooklyn issued an injunction to keep key parts of the executive order from going into effect while legal challenges moved forward. The next day, DHS Secretary Kelly formally exempted green card holders from the provisions of the executive order.
In the following months, several other federal judges issued similar rulings saying the order should be halted. Trump signed a second order in March ― this time removing Iraq from the original list of seven countries ― in an attempt to clean up the legal problems posed by his first order.
But the result was largely the same. Appeals courts in the 9th and 4th U.S. Circuits have upheld injunctions keeping the travel restrictions from going into effect. The Department of Justice appealed both cases, bringing them all the way to the Supreme Court.
While the White House has almost unbridled authority to restrict who is allowed to enter the country, U.S. officials cannot discriminate against visitors for religious reasons. Trump’s bombastic words from the campaign trail came back to haunt him as the courts considered his orders.
“The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that [the executive order’s] primary purpose is religious,” the 10-3 ruling issued by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May reads. “Then-candidate Trump’s campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States.”
Trump remained such a staunch defender of his travel ban that he vowed to “fight this terrible ruling,” all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, after a Hawaii federal judge blocked parts of the second ban in March.
- Countries: United_States