Supreme Court Approves Part of Trump's Travel Ban

I knew I should have stayed away from the news entirely today. I just saw this: Supreme Court Okays Part of Trump's Travel Ban:

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to allow a limited version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect and will consider in the fall the president’s broad powers in immigration matters in a case that raises fundamental issues of national security and religious discrimination.

The court made an important exception: 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.”


Who should be okay:

....a foreign national who wants to visit or live with a family member would have such a relationship, and so would students from the designated countries — Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — who were admitted to a U.S. university.

That's all for now.

< Friday and Monday Open Thread | ISIS' Ban on Fighters Using Social Media >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    its being said on the nooze (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 06:10:01 PM EST
    the "who should be ok" part will mean that pretty much anyone who wants to come will still be able to come.  

    also saying the idea that people who have relatives here and students are any less likely to be a threat than anyone else is dumb.

    should i take from this ruling (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 08:23:32 PM EST
    that scotus is rejecting the lower courts assertionthat the travel ban is a violation of the establishment clause?

    No, you should not. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 10:33:06 PM EST
    Today's "ruling" is only a procedural order that (a) agrees to decide an appeal of the injunctions next fall, with briefs to be filed over the summer, and oral arguments heard in October; (b) sets which parts of the injunctions will stay in place in the meanwhile. No ruling has been made, or even intimated, on the merits of any of the issues presented at all. And the Supreme Court clearly does not view the situation as any kind of emergency.