Not surprisingly, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court is allowing Donald Trump’s controversial Muslim ban to go into effect.
The third version of the controversial travel ban prohibits people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
However, the temporary victory for Trump was not an endorsement of the proposed travel restrictions, notes the ACLU. The court ruling merely stayed the lower court orders that prevented the executive order from being implemented while the lawsuits against the travel ban make their way through the lower courts.
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, had this reaction:
“President Trump’s anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret — he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It’s unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down.”
Seven of the justices ruled in favor of the administration while two — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — said the partial stay on the ban should continue.
The court did not give a reason for its decision. However, the travel ban could still be found unconstitutional as the lawsuits against the ban make their way to the Supreme Court.
Two appeals courts, the 9th and 4th circuits, are scheduled to hear arguments this week in separate cases that were filed in Hawaii and Maryland challenging the travel ban.
Among the issues raised by challengers was whether the travel ban discriminated against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring a particular religion. The same arguments are being used against the new ban.
The travel ban — the third one Trump has issued — bars most travelers from eight countries — Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Six are Muslim-majority nations.
Two Asian American judges, Theodore Chuang of Maryland and Derrick Watson of Hawaii had blocked the third version of the travel ban from being enforced.
The Supreme Court’s decision Monday essentially throws out a compromise that exempted foreign nationals who have credible claims of a bona fide relationship with someone in the United States, including grandparents, brothers- and sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles and cousins.
“This decision ignores the very real human consequences to American citizens and their families abroad imposed by President Trump’s Muslim Ban 3.0,” said Lena Masri, national director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”
“No one should be discriminated against on the basis of how they look, how they choose to pray, or their country of origin,” said South Asian Americans Leading Together in a statement. ‘Muslim Ban 3.0’ remains reprehensible at its core and discriminatory in its intent. While the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the ‘Muslim Ban,’ court after court has consistently rejected it as outright discrimination and a threat to our most fundamental constitutional protections.”
AsAmNews has Asian America in its heart. We’re an all-volunteer effort of dedicated staff and interns. You can show your support by liking our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/asamnews, following us on Twitter, sharing our stories, interning or joining our staff.