Supreme Court Revives Parts of Trump Travel Ban

WVN – (VOA) The U.S. Supreme Court says it will consider the case of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting travel – and in the meantime much of the order may take effect.

Trump’s revised executive order, known as the travel ban, halted travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and halted the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The order said these steps were necessary in order to revise security screening to safeguard the nation from external threats.


The travel order had been placed under restraining orders by two separate courts, one in Hawaii and one in Maryland. Both rulings were sustained by separate appeals courts.

But the nation’s highest court took a more nuanced view, allowing the ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and the suspension of the refugee program.

However, the justices said the ban on travel cannot be enforced against “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The court goes on to define relationships that would qualify: for individuals, a family relationship; for students, admittance to a college or university; for workers, a job offer.

Travel Order Exceptions

In reinstating much of President Trump’s order banning travelers from six mostly Muslim countries and all refugees, the U.S. Supreme Court included exceptions for those with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”Here are examples the court provided of such relationships:

Family relationships
A  foreign  national  who  wishes  to  enter  the  United  States  to  live  with  or  visit  a  family  member.
Those students from the designated countries who have been admitted to a school in the U.S.
Employees/guest speakers
A  worker  who  accepted  an  offer  of  employment  from  an  American  company  or  a  lecturer  invited  to  address an  American  audience.
Exception to the exceptions
For all of the exceptions above, the Court stated the relationships must not have been formed for the purpose of avoiding the restrictions set out in the executive order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

en English