Who can get around the travel ban?

Wade Meyer LGBT refugee services coordinator at the Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay has been working with Amir a gay refugee from Iran who recently arrived in the U.S

Options for Supreme Court on Trump travel ban

He says he's not surprised the court found a compromise.

Chin said he believes in the president's power to protect national security but not when it discriminates against people due to their national origin or religion.

"The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to SC", Trump said on Twitter earlier in June.

The ruling also said it would permit a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect.

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security", he said in a White House statement released by the White House.

The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case. Opponents say it targets Muslims in violation of federal law and the Constitution. A senior official said plans already had been written to enforce the ban aggressively. This means that people from six countries and refugees who have a family, business or other relationships cannot be banned from entering.

Implementing the ban may cause chaos at airports, experts warn.

A broad interpretation, for example, could allow for a contract or reservation with a rental vehicle agency or hotel in the United States to be considered legitimate relationship, the officials said. Trump claims the temporary ban is needed to prevent terrorist attacks.

"As President, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm", said Trump in a statement.

LaVar Ball appears at WWE event, son LaMelo uses slur
But, before the match could begin, Ambrose hit the ring, and during the commercial break, he and LaVar continued the segment. Things got weird quickly as LaVar led the descent into chaos, taking off his shirt and challenging The Miz to a match.

The New York Times reports that the court allowed parts of the ban to go into affect as it prepares to hear arguments on the case in October.

"The court went out of its way to not tip its hand as to how it will rule on the ultimate issue, which is whether the president has the power to do this". The limited lift on the ban until arguments are made in the next court term will give the administration more than the 90 days it has said it needs to make that assessment.

"From day one, President Trump and his national security team took swift action to protect Americans by placing a temporary pause on admissions to the US from countries that pose national security concerns. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive", wrote Trump. It has 56 other member states across the world.

Even though, parts of the ban are allowed to continue, like Darwish, Harrison is frustrated.

However, the Supreme Court's criteria for who can be barred from entering the United States under Trump's travel ban may confuse the USA officials overseas charged with implementing it and trigger a new round of lawsuits, experts said.

The court basically said that foreign nationals with no "bona fide relationship" to the United States do not have the same rights and can be barred from entry. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national [.] And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself".

Further complicating matters is Trump's own distaste for the revised travel ban he signed on March 6. Yet that is precisely what liberal majorities on both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal did in blocking the travel bans, and the Supreme Court is saying those rulings will not be the last judicial word.

An official with a higher-education association who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely about the ruling said that at first read, it appears "the court basically agrees with us".

It could also mean more lawsuits if advocates for immigrants believe the administration is going beyond the Supreme Court's guidelines in barring visitors to the United States.

Latest News