The U.S. Supreme Court says it will consider the case of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting travel - and in the meantime much of the order may take effect.

Trump’s revised executive order, known as the travel ban, halted travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and halted the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The order said these steps were necessary in order to revise security screening to safeguard the nation from external threats.

The travel order had been placed under restraining orders by two separate courts, one in Hawaii and one in Maryland. Both rulings were sustained by separate appeals courts.

But the nation’s highest court took a more nuanced view, allowing the ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and the suspension of the refugee program.

However, the justices said the ban on travel cannot be enforced against “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bone fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

In its 6 to 3 ruling the court goes on to define relationships that would qualify: for individuals, a family relationship; for students, admittance to a college or university; for workers, a job offer.

Trump has said that the travel order would go into effect 72 hours after a high court ruling.

The justices are expected to hear the travel order case in the fall, but they noted that they will also consider whether the case in moot at the that point. The measures spelled out in the order are meant to be temporary while the government reviews its security procedures.

Enforceability questioned

Three of court’s most conservative justices dissented. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing on behalf of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, expressed worries about the enforceability of the partial implementation of the order.

“I fear the court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Thomas wrote. “(It) will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection with a person or entity in this country.”

The ruling invites “a flood of litigation,” Thomas writes.

The part of the order banning travelers from six countries was blocked first by the Fourth Circuit court of appeals in Richmond, Virginia, which ruled that Trump’s own statements and tweets made the case that the travel order was a ban on Muslims.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later stayed both the six-country ban and cessation of the refugee program. But this court based its ruling on statuary grounds, saying Trump had exceeded his lawful authority.

Civil rights and pro-immigration groups have objected to the order as being unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims. [Read More]

—–
Source: VOA News: Education