In part, justices allow travel ban

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

The court made an important exception, saying 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."

In the unsigned opinion, the court said 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 -- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- who were admitted to a U.S. university.

In a statement, Trump called the ruling "a clear victory for our national security."

[U.S. SUPREME COURT: More on current justices, voting relationships]

"Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool to protect our Nation's homeland. I also am particularly gratified that the Supreme Court's decision was 9-0," he said.

"As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm," Trump wrote, calling his efforts to limit entry into the country a "suspension" instead of a ban.

State Department spokesman Heather Nauert said the ban would be implemented 72 hours after being cleared by courts. That means it will take effect Thursday morning.

In a statement, officials at the Department of Homeland Security said the court opinion will allow the department "to largely implement the President's executive order." Trump used similar language in his statement, saying his travel ban would now "become largely effective."

[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 100 days]

Critics of the ban disputed those assessments. Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the opinion meant the ban would not apply to many people while the court case proceeds.

"Clearly, the White House press statement today is based on alternative facts," Wang said.

A senior official said plans already had been written to enforce the ban aggressively. But immigration groups said relatively few people try to enter the United States without well-established ties. Those groups said they will send lawyers and monitors to American airports, where the initial, immediate implementation of the ban in January caused chaos and confusion.

"This order, properly construed, should really allow for only the narrowest implementation of any part of the ban. It's going to be really important for us to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a backdoor into implementing the full-scale Muslim ban," said Omar Jadwat, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing some of the challengers to the travel ban.

[U.S. immigration: Data visualization of selected immigration statistics, U.S. border map]

The administration's implementation plans, largely orchestrated by White House adviser Stephen Miller, focus on refusing entry to people who are unable to show a substantial and pre-existing tie to a person or institution in the United States. The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name.

The court's decision could lead to months of administrative and legal wrangling as consular officials try to determine which individuals are allowed to seek entry to the United States and which are barred by the opinion.

"We are going to be monitoring all of that," said Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Some opponents of the travel ban said they worried about the fate of people who might be barred from entry into the United States in the meantime.

"The court's ruling will leave refugees stranded in difficult and dangerous situations abroad," said Hardy Vieux of the group Human Rights First. "Many of these individuals may not have 'bona fide relationships,' but have strong reasons to look to the United States for protection."

Lower courts faulted

Two federal appeals courts had blocked critical parts of Trump's order. The administration had asked that the lower-court ruling be stayed while the case moved forward. The high court granted part of that request in its unsigned opinion.

[EMAIL UPDATES: Get free breaking news alerts, daily newsletters with top headlines delivered to your inbox]

]The court's opinion explained the kinds of relationships people from the six countries must demonstrate to obtain a U.S. visa.

"For individuals, a close familial relationship is required," the court said. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, "the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the purpose of evading" the travel ban.

The opinion faulted the two federal appeals courts that had blocked the travel policy for going too far to limit Trump's authority over immigration. The president announced the travel ban a week after he took office in January and revised it in March after setbacks in court.

The court said it would hear both cases when it reconvenes in October. The ban will have run its course by then, raising a question of whether the justices will even issue a decision in the case or dismiss it because it has been overtaken by events.

The court asked the parties to address whether the case would be moot by the time it hears it; the ban is supposed to be a temporary one while the government reviews its vetting procedures.

Justices said they "fully expect" the government to be able to conduct its review within the 90-day span the executive order proposes.

The executive order bans for 90 days the issuance of new visas to citizens of six countries and declares a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have let the ban take effect as written and objected to what they called the court's "compromise."

A partial stay 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 to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote.

Such a compromise, the justices said, will lead to a "flood of litigation" over what constitutes a "bona fide relationship" before the overall case is resolved after oral arguments in the fall.

They added that the court has made an "implicit conclusion" that the administration will prevail.

The Supreme Court also asked both sides to address questions about whether the ban is aimed at Muslims, the effect of Trump's campaign statements and federal courts' authority to restrain the president in the area of immigration.

Legal battles

The proposed travel ban has been a major point of contention between Trump and civil-rights groups, which say it was motivated by unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims.

Trump contends the ban is necessary to protect the nation while the administration decides whether tougher vetting procedures and other measures are needed. He has criticized federal judges who have blocked the move.

Because the executive order was stopped by lower courts, travelers from the six countries have been entering the United States by following normal visa procedures.

Trump's original executive order on travel went into effect immediately and resulted in chaos at airports in the United States and abroad as travelers from the targeted countries were either stranded or sent back to their countries.

Lawyers for challengers to the order rushed to federal courts, and the order was stayed within days. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit eventually said the order could not be implemented, frustrating the president, who said he would take the case to the Supreme Court.

Instead, his administration regrouped and issued a second order in March. It added a section detailing national security concerns, removed Iraq from the list of countries affected, deleted a section that had targeted Syrian refugees and removed a provision that favored Christian immigrants.

His lawyers told courts that the new order was written to respond to the 9th Circuit's concerns, but new lawsuits were immediately filed, and federal judges once again stopped the implementation.

Information for this article was contributed by Robert Barnes of The Washington Post; by Michael D. Shear and Adam Liptak of The New York Times; and by Mark Sherman, Ted Bridis and Josh Lederman of The Associated Press.

A Section on 06/27/2017


RELATED ARTICLES

http://www.arkansas…">State gays win birth-certificate rulinghttp://www.arkansas…">Ruling gives boost to church rights

http://www.arkansas…">Justices refuse gun-carrying case

Upcoming Events