Supreme Court Reinstates Part Of Trump Travel Ban, Will Hear Case In October

The Supreme Court has largely reinstated President Donald Trump's travel ban and will hear arguments in the case in October, deciding whether the executive order signed by the president that has been blocked by two federal appeals court, is lawful.

The executive order, a revised version of the initial and more harsher order signed by Trump in January, was blocked by two federal appeals court. Both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld injunctions against the ban that were put in place by lower courts.

The revised executive order bans nationals of six majority Muslim countries — Iran, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Sudan and Somalia — from obtaining new visas to enter the United States for 90 days and suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days.

Watch: Refugee Organization Disappointed With Supreme Court Decision

In the case brought before the Ninth Circuit, the injunction that was upheld blocked both parts of the travel ban. While the case brought before the Fourth Circuit upheld an injunction that blocked enforcing part of the order that temporarily banned the issuance of new visas.

President Donald Trump issued the following statement on the court's decision:

"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive. My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0."

The Supreme Court granted the government's request for stay, reinstating limits on travel. However, the limits on travel only apply to nationals of the six countries mentioned in the order who "lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." Essentially, anyone with ties to the United States would not be prohibited from entering the country but those who were applying for new visas and did not have a relationship with a person or entity in the United States would be temporarily barred from entering the country. Those with ties to the United States, the court decided, were not just respondents in the cases that led to the injunctions but those similarly situated to the respondents, "that is, people or entities in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals abroad, and whose rights might be affected if those foreign nationals were excluded."

The court described those relationships as a close familial relationship for individuals and for entities, that would mean a relation like being admitted to an American university or a worker who has accepted a job offer from an American company.

As for refugees, the court granted the stay in part as well, applying the same limits of having a bonafide relationship that it applied to those seeking visas.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it would provide additional information on implementation of the order after consulting with the Department of Justice and the Department of State. Officials also said they would provide sufficient public notice, especially to potentially affected travelers, regarding the implementation of the order.

By the time the court hears arguments in the case, the review period the government had set out — 90 days — to assess whether the countries mentioned in the order have adequate visa screening measures in place, would be over, leaving the question of whether the case would be valid by then.

Photo by Simone Wilson/Patch

Patch will update this breaking news story.