WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

FILE PHOTO: An international traveler arrives after U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel ban at Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. January 30, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump’s controversial executive order, which banned travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and limited refugee admissions.

The March 6 order suspended travel for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks and allow the government to put in place more stringent vetting procedures.

The order took effect in late June, following a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the scope of lower court rulings.

In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban.

The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.

However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump’s refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.

The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.

Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA’s senior director of campaigns, said the refugee ban is inherently cruel.

“The Supreme Court today has dealt yet another devastating blow to vulnerable people who were on the cusp of obtaining safety for themselves and their families,” she said. “They continue to be subjected to unimaginable violence and fear while their lives are in limbo.”

Earlier on Tuesday the state of Hawaii, which challenged the policy, said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still “bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country.” All the 9th Circuit ruling did is “protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores,” Hawaii’s lawyers added.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said he respected the Supreme Court’s decision and is preparing for the hearing there on Oct. 10. </s> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that prevented President Donald Trump’s travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

FILE PHOTO: International passengers embrace family members as they arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport after the Trump administration's travel ban was allowed back into effect pending further judicial review, in Dulles, Virginia, U.S., June 29, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan

In a court filing, the administration asked the justices to overturn Thursday’s decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

The latest round in the fight over Trump’s March 6 executive order, which he says is needed for national security reasons, came after the Supreme Court intervened last month to partially revive the two bans, which were blocked by lower courts.

The Supreme Court said then that the ban could take effect, but that people with a “bona fide relationship” to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred.

The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted. He ruled for the state late on Thursday.

In the court filing, the Justice Department said the judge’s ruling “empties the (Supreme) Court’s decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just “close” family members but virtually all family members.

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court is not currently in session but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration’s application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant such a request.

“The truth here is that the government’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s stay order defies common sense,” said Omar Jadwat, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union involved in challenging the ban. “That’s what the district court correctly found and the attorney general’s misleading attacks on its decision can’t change that fact.”

In his decision, Watson harshly criticized the government’s definition of close family relations as “the antithesis of common sense.”

Watson also ruled that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

In the court filing, the Justice Department said Watson’s ruling on refugees would make the Supreme Court’s decision on that part of the executive order “effectively meaningless.”

The ruling, if left in place, means refugees can continue to be resettled in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000 set by the executive order. That limit was reached this week.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month revived parts of Trump’s March 6 executive order banning travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as refugees for 120 days. The court also agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution. </s> The Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his temporary travel bans from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no connection to the United States while agreeing to hear his appeals in the closely watched legal fight.

The court, which narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked his March 6 executive order, said it would hear arguments on the legality of one of Trump's signature policies in his first months as president in the court's next term, which starts in October.

The justices granted parts of his administration's emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.

The court said that the travel ban will go into effect "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the travel ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals abroad and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry.

But the court said the injunctions were too broad to also include barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said.

The court also said it would allow a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect on the same grounds, allowing the government to exclude from the United States refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity.

Three of the court's conservatives said they would have granted Trump's request in full, including Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch.

The case is Trump's first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.

The March 6 order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to enable the government to implement stronger vetting procedures. It was blocked by federal judges before going into effect on March 16 as planned.

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But critics have called the order a mean-spirited, intolerant and un-American "Muslim ban."

The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.

Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 order issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts. The revised order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, which also included Iraq among the nations targeted and a full ban on refugees from Syria. The revised order also jettisoned language that gave preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, which critics said could be taken as favoring Christians and other religious groups over Muslims.

Trump has called the March order a "watered down, politically correct" version of the January one. But the order still embodied his "America First" nationalist message and reflected his views of the dangers posed to the United States by certain immigrants and visitors.

The administration has said the travel ban is needed to allow time to implement stronger vetting measures, although it has already rolled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants. </s> The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States while agreeing to decide this fall the legality of the order.

The case represents a major test of presidential powers. The justices, in their unsigned decision, granted parts of the Trump administration’s emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.

The court, which narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked his March 6 executive order, said it would hear arguments in October on the lawfulness of one of Trump’s signature policies in his first months as president

Explainer: How do U.S. courts work? A map of the Trump travel ban’s long journey

The March 6 order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees to enable the government to implement stronger vetting procedures. It was blocked by federal judges before going into effect on March 16 as planned.

Both bans are now due to partly go into effect in 72 hours, based on a memorandum issued by the Trump administration on June 14.

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are U.S. permanent residents, known as green card holders. The executive order also made waivers available for a foreign national seeking to enter the United States to resume work or study, visit a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen, or for “significant business or professional obligations.” Refugees “in transit” and already approved would have been able to travel to the United States under the executive order.

The case is Trump’s first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April.

There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.

Three of the court’s conservatives said they would have granted Trump’s request to reinstate the order in full, including Gorsuch. Justice Clarence Thomas warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have connection to the U.S. and those who do not will prove unworkable.

“Today’s compromise 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.

The justices said that the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” That indicates that people from the six countries and refugees who have family, business or other ties would not be barred from entry. But those seeking visas to enter the United States with no such ties could be barred.

The decision endorsed the Trump administration’s contention that the president deserves greater deference from the courts on national security matters.

The court said that Trump’s executive order distinguished between foreigners who have “some connection to this country” and those who do not, and said the government had committed to review cases for those with some connection to the United States on a case-by-case basis.

The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals abroad and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry.

But the court said the injunctions were too broad to also include barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all. “Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national,” the court said.

The court handled the refugee ban in a similar way, allowing the government to exclude from the United States refugee claimants who do not have any “bona fide relationship” with an American individual or entity.

Thomas said this will lead to a flood of litigation as courts try to figure out who has a “bona fide relationship” with the United States.

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But critics have called the order a mean-spirited, intolerant and un-American “Muslim ban.”

The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.

Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 order issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts. The revised order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, which also included Iraq among the nations targeted and a full ban on refugees from Syria. The revised order also jettisoned language that gave preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, which critics said could be taken as favoring Christians and other religious groups over Muslims.

Trump has called the March order a “watered down, politically correct” version of the January one. But the order still embodied his “America First” nationalist message and reflected his views of the dangers posed to the United States by certain immigrants and visitors.

The administration has said the travel ban is needed to allow time to implement stronger vetting measures, although it has already rolled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants. </s> The Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban in one of the most highly anticipated decisions of this year, saying the ban is "squarely within" the president's authority.The Court's 5-4 ruling that the third iteration of Trump's controversial proposal, Travel Ban 3.0, is constitutional comes after two previous attempts by the administration to bar immigration to the United States from certain foreign countries.President Trump reacted quickly, tweeting "SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!"SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2018 That newest iteration of the travel ban is a presidential proclamation signed on Sept. 24, 2017, that indefinitely restricted most travel from the countries of Chad, Iran Iraq , Libya, North Korea, Syria Venezuela , and Yemen -linking the restrictions to those countries' purported vetting deficiencies. In April, The U.S. lifted travel restrictions on Chad.Some of those countries have a majority-Muslim population, leading to accusations that the administration was unfairly targeting Muslims. Federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii issued injunctions shortly afterward that blocked the ban for the majority-Muslim countries but allowed restrictions from North Korea and Venezuela to go into effect.Trump said in a statement the ruling is a "tremendous victory" for the American people."In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country. This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country," he said in the statement."As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens. Our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch."In the case, Trump v. Hawaii, the state of Hawaii argues that the ban hurts its university system by banning potential students and scholars from entering the country. Individual plaintiffs who joined the case with Hawaii also say it separates them from family members who applied for visas to enter the country.The administration argued that Travel Ban 3.0 was vetted by multiple agencies and was based on a review of foreign policy, not religion. Hawaii and the other plaintiffs challenged the proclamation, asking the court to rule on whether it was a lawful use of the president's authority, was too broad, or improperly targeted countries with a large Muslim population.The court ruled in favor of the administration, Chief Justice John Roberts writing "..the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.""The proclamation is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA," Roberts wrote in the court's decision, also saying that neither dissent "even attempts a serious argument to the contrary." INA is an acronym for the Immigration and Nationality Act.In response to arguments that the travel ban targeted Muslims, citing President Trump's previous comments about Muslims and Islam, the plaintiffs argued that Trump's rhetoric contradicted America's constitutional tradition, but Roberts said the proclamation itself is neutral toward religion."The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion," Roberts said. "Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world's Muslim population."Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said in her dissent that the majority decision fails to protect religious liberty as a fundamental American principle. The dissent chronicles many of Trump's previous comments about Muslims during the campaign and references that the travel ban was originally advertised as a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.""This repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President's words have created. Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus," Sotomayor said.Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the decision is a "great victory for the safety and security of all Americans.""The Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad discretion to protect the interests of the United States. Today's decision is critical to ensuring the continued authority of President Trump - and all future presidents - to protect the American people. We will continue to take and defend all lawful steps necessary to protect this great nation," he said in a statement.The Department of Homeland Security also said that the ruling confirms the legality of Trump's executive actions to protect Americans from terrorists and malicious actors that abuse the immigration system.The American Civil Liberties Union said the decision will "go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's greatest failures.""It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking action to rescind and dismantle Trump's Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country's most basic principles of freedom and equality," director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project Omar Jadwat said in a statement.Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to restrict immigration from majority-Muslim countries have been struck down by federal courts.A week after his inauguration, Trump issued an executive order to immediately suspend admission into the country by individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan for 90 days. It also halted refugee admissions for 120 days and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees. The order contained an exception for members of religious minorities.Inflamed by the administration's attempt to restrict immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, protesters descended on the nation's airports and chaos swiftly ensued. The Ninth Circuit rejected the first so-called travel ban, and the administration subsequently introduced a slightly altered order. Travel Ban 2.0 also faced challenges in a number of lower courts, but in June 2017 the Supreme Court allowed it to go partially into effect. The order expired by its own terms and the Trump administration replaced it with the proclamation upheld Tuesday.The addition of Chad -- a key counterterror ally which has been cooperating with the U.S. against ISIS, Boko Haram, and others -- was seen by many foreign policy experts as a grave error. Since then, the White House said H.R. McMaster, the then-national security adviser, had spoken to Chad's president, Idriss Deby Itno, about how to work together "to address the deficiencies, toward the goal of improving vetting capabilities and lifting visa restrictions." </s> The fight over President Trump’s travel ban reached the Supreme Court late Thursday night, in the form of three urgent requests from the Justice Department.

Here is a look at where things stand, and the justices’ options.

What is happening in the Supreme Court?

The Justice Department filed a petition seeking review of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., that blocked the Trump administration’s proposed limits on travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

The government asked the justices to act a little faster than usual, urging them to decide whether to hear the case before they leave for their summer break. But that would still defer arguments to the fall, with a decision to follow.

“The stakes are indisputably high: The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism,” the government’s brief said. </s> President Donald Trump’s administration asked the US Supreme Court on Thursday to reinstate its temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim majority nations despite repeated setbacks in the lower courts.

In its filing, the government asked the top US court to rule on the legal standing of Trump’s order, appealing a ruling by the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a nationwide block of the travel ban.

It also asked the Supreme Court to lift another US-wide injunction issued by a federal judge in a separate case based in Hawaii. That case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision is pending.

The administration is “confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said.

“The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.”

The filing came one week after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling dealt a fresh blow to Trump’s efforts to push the controversial travel ban that has triggered mass protests and confusion at airports.

The Fourth Circuit said it “remained unconvinced” that the part of the measure naming the specific countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — had “more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the president’s promised Muslim ban.”

– “Indisputably high” stakes –

 It said it was unclear whether the government’s security concerns outweighed the plaintiffs’ concerns about discrimination.

The Court of Appeals “concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism,” the filing read.

That court’s decision “creates uncertainty about the president’s authority to meet those threats as the Constitution and acts of Congress empower and obligate him to do.”

Even if the Supreme Court takes the case, it is unlikely to hear it this term, which is due to end this month.

Trump issued his initial travel ban by executive order in January, but that measure — which banned entry to nationals from seven countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days — was quickly halted by the courts.

The administration said the travel ban was needed so it could evaluate existing screening methods protocols and set new ones.

A revised executive order in March meant to address concerns raised by the federal judges. It deleted Iraq from the list and removed an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

The order however was widely criticized, including by human rights activists and US states led by Democrats.

Federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii issued a nationwide block on the measure, sending the issue to the relevant appellate courts.

Given the case’s high-profile nature, the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia heard the arguments last week — bypassing the usual initial three-judge panel — for the first time in a quarter of a century.

Thirteen of the court’s 15 active judges took part. Two recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.

This post was syndicated from Nigeria News, Headlines and Opinions – The Guardian Nigeria Newspaper. Click here to read the full text on the original website.

Do you something awesome to share with the world? Click here to share

Do you ever have any question about anything you wish to ask and get answer? Click here to ask

Also, Like us on facebook </s> WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court’s first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four conservative colleagues.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration.

The court may have signaled its eventual approval in December, when the justices allowed the policy to take full effect even as the court fight continued and lower courts had ruled it out of bounds.

The President has tweeted his response to the decision saying, "SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!" </s> WASHINGTON (dpa-AFX) - President Donald Trump's administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court rulings blocking an executive order banning immigration from six Muslim-majority countries.



The Trump administration filings Thursday night also ask the Supreme Court to temporarily lift the injunctions and allow the order to take effect, which would require support from five of the nine Justices.



'We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump's executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the Nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,' Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement. 



She added, 'The President is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.'



The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to expedite the case so that it could be heard near the beginning of the court's next term in October.



The administration had previously indicated its intention to appeal a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a ruling blocking Trump's travel ban.



In the 10-3 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month, the majority argued that Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail suggests the travel ban's primary purpose is religious.



The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the challengers to the travel ban, tweeted, 'We've beat this hateful ban and are ready to do it again.'



(Photo: Michael Vadon)



Copyright RTT News/dpa-AFX
The U.S. Supreme Court rules 5–4 in favor of the Trump administration's September 2017 travel ban.