Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Daderot
The court allowed the ban to go into effect pending appeals.
By Michael V. Cusenza
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday effectively granted the Trump administration permission to carry out the latest iteration of its travel ban.
According to the Supreme Court and published reports, President Donald Trump’s third version of the original travel ban can go into effect while appeals work their ways through lower courts.
“In light of its decision to consider the case on an expedited basis, we expect that the Court of Appeals will render its decision with appropriate dispatch,” SCOTUS wrote in an “Order in Pending Case.”
In September, Trump announced an expansion of his original travel ban, which he issued just days after the inauguration. Trump signed the Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” in late January. This action sought to bar refugees from entering the United States for the following 120 days; and preclude all immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen – from entering the U.S. for three months.
That Executive Order was struck down in court.
In the expansion that Trump issued two months ago, certain travel limitations and restrictions were placed on nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The administration noted that these “limitations and restrictions are conditional, and these countries can, under this Executive action, improve their information-sharing practices and receive relief from the limitations and restrictions.”
Monday’s Supreme Court development sparked outrage from some elected City officials who have opposed the travel ban in all forms.
“The fundamental question now is not whether this so-called travel ban is consistent with the rule of law, but whether the Supreme Court will ultimately choose to legitimize an executive branch that repeatedly and flagrantly expresses hostility towards Muslims, and glosses over its xenophobia with deceptive arguments about upholding a duty to preserve national security,” said City Councilman I. Daneek Miller (D-St. Albans). “Each day this immoral decree is allowed to continue the principles of liberty and human decency will be subverted by the court’s misguided supposition that this is a rational action being implemented by a rational actor.”
City Comptroller Scott Stringer called the ruling “deeply troubling and unbelievably saddening.”
“There are many court decisions throughout history we wish we could take back, decisions that legalized and codified discrimination. This is one of them,” Stringer added. “Let there be no doubt that history will view this moment as emblematic of a dark time in America.”