The President is taking his case directly to the US Supreme Court to fully implement a policy that would secure all Americans from potential terror attacks.
According to The Hill, the Trump administration is arguing that the travel ban, which was only partially implemented because of a California appeals court ruling, is necessary in order to shield the US from terrorism.
The White House dismissed claims that the policy used discriminatory criteria against those of certain religious beliefs, arguing that the latest ban “is based on national-security and foreign-affairs objectives, not religious animus.”
A three-judge panel from the San-Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals partially granted the White House’s request to block a temporary judge’s ruling that put the controversial ban on hold. The partial-ruling said that the government could bar entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries as long as those individuals had no connections or family members in the United States.
The six countries in question are Libya, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Chad, and Somalia. The eight countries on the modified list first released in September included Venezuela and North Korea.
Among other arguments, the administration claims that even if the 9th Circuit Court ruled to uphold the partial ban, the US Supreme Court was likely to overturn the decision. With a slight majority of Supreme Court Justice’s favoring conservative interpretations of the Constitution, the White House said that they would rule against the decision as it had “the last time courts barred the President from enforcing entry restrictions on certain foreign nationals in the interest of national security.”
As reported by Reuters, “connections” are defined as “formal, documented” relationships with US-based entities such as colleges or resettlement agencies. Those with close family relationships such as grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, cousins, or nephews are still permitted to enter the country.
The State of Hawaii sued to block the restrictions, claiming that federal immigration law did not give President Trump the authority to impose them on six of those countries. The lawsuit did not challenge restrictions to North Korea and Venezuela. Instead, they only addressed Muslim-majority countries on the list.
Back in 1950, the Supreme Court ruled, “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power.” Later in 1952, Congress added a provision saying the president, “May, by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” according to The Los Angeles Times.
President Trump previously tweeted about an adverse ruling to the travel ban back in February, saying that “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned.”
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has partially blocked Pres. Trump’s immigration order. Will the travel ban keep us safer?
Mr. Trump added that he “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system.” His comments are just as relevant today as they were earlier in the year.
As the White House continues to fight against the rulings of politically-motivated judges, it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court takes things into their own hands.