The ban has been blocked by lower courts which have said that it is discriminatory.

Two emergency applications have now been filed by the government with the court’s nine justices that seek to overturn those lower court rulings.

The controversial ban has prompted protests and debate across the US.

“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,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.

“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 administration has asked the court to grant emergency requests that would see the travel ban reinstated immediately. That ruling could come within two weeks.

The court will then decide whether to hear the administration’s full appeal. If it does, that could take place in October.

Opponents of the travel ban vowed to continue their fight.

The American Civil Liberties Union, tweeted: “We’ve beat this hateful ban and are ready to do it again.”

Karen Tumlin, legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, told Associated Press: “Again and again, our nation’s courts have found that President Trump’s Muslim ban is unconstitutional. We will continue to defend our plaintiffs’ right to live free from fear of discriminatory treatment by the federal government.”

Ban ‘rooted in religious animus’

Mr Trump signed his original executive order shortly after coming into office in January.

It banned entry to nationals from Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen for 90 days and halted the refugee programme for 120 days.

Its implementation caused chaos at airports and protests in a number of cities.

It was blocked after a legal challenge initially mounted by Washington state and Minnesota.

Mr Trump then signed a revised order in March to try to address legal issues, and removed Iraq from the list.

However, a district court in Maryland found the ban violated constitutional rights and blocked it before it could take effect on 16 March.

A federal judge in Hawaii also sided with opponents, finding that the ban was discriminatory and citing “questionable evidence” in the government’s argument that it was a matter of national security.

Last month, a federal appeals court in Virginia dealt Mr Trump a fresh blow when it refused to lift the temporary block.

It said that the government’s national security argument was a “secondary justification for an executive order rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country”.

Mr Trump will need the support of five of the nine Supreme Court judges to reinstate the ban.

The president’s appointment of Neil Gorsuch this year reinstated a 5-4 conservative majority. However, the conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the swing vote, as he sometimes sides with the liberals.

They will need to decide whether Mr Trump’s order was intended to discriminate against Muslims.

–

Source: BBC

The post US travel ban goes to Supreme Court appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Iraq – which was covered in the previous seven-nation order – has been removed from the new one after agreeing to additional visa vetting measures.

The directive, which includes a 120-day ban on all refugees, takes effect on 16 March.

The previous order, which was blocked by a federal court, sparked confusion at airports and mass protests.

Presented as a means to strengthen national security against terror threats, it was blocked by the courts and effectively remains on hold.

The new order was unveiled by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly.

“The fact remains that we are not immune to terrorist threats and that our enemies often use our own freedoms and generosity against us,” said Mr Kelly.

In justifying the refugee ban, Mr Sessions said there are more than 300 refugees under investigation for potential terror offences. But no further details were given.

What is different about the new order?

Citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, the other six countries on the original 27 January order, will once more be subject to a 90-day travel ban.

Iraq has been taken off the banned list because its government has boosted visa screening and data sharing, White House officials said.

The new directive says refugees already approved by the State Department can enter the US. It also lifts an indefinite ban on all Syrian refugees.

Green Card holders (legal permanent residents of the US) from the named countries will not be affected.

The new order does not give priority to religious minorities, unlike the previous directive.

Critics of the Trump administration had argued that this was an unlawful policy showing preference to Christian refugees.

What does the administration say?

The three Cabinet secretaries held a joint news conference on Monday morning to discuss the new directive.

America’s top US diplomat said the order was meant to “eliminate vulnerabilities that radical Islamic terrorists can and will exploit for destructive ends”.

Mr Sessions said that, according to the FBI, more than 300 people who entered the US as refugees are under investigation for potential terrorism-related offences.

The top US prosecutor said three of the countries were state sponsors of terrorism.

The other three, Mr Sessions said, had lost control of territory to militants such as the Islamic State group or al-Qaeda.

Mr Kelly added that unregulated and unvetted travel was putting national security at risk.

He said the US cannot tolerate “malevolent actors using our immigration system to take American lives”.

None of the cabinet secretaries took any questions after the press conference.

The new order is set to take effect on 16 March.

White House officials hope the 10 days’ notice will help to avoid some of the chaotic scenes at US airports that occurred on 27 January when the first executive order was announced without warning.

Travellers with valid visas who were in the air at the time found themselves detained by border officials on arrival.

Mr Trump had defended the lack of notice, tweeting that “if the ban were announced with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week”.

Will the new executive order face legal challenges?

Yes. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman – the state’s highest ranking law enforcement officer – issued a statement on Monday saying his office is ready to take the Trump administration to court.

“While the White House may have made changes to the ban, the intent to discriminate against Muslims remains clear,” he said.

“My office is closely reviewing the new executive order, and I stand ready to litigate – again – in order to protect New York’s families, institutions, and economy.”

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), an Arab-American grassroots civil rights organisation, immediately called for donations to fight impending legal battles ahead.

“The ban is about xenophobia and Islamophobia,” the group said in a statement to the BBC.

–

Source: BBC

The post Trump signs new travel ban directive appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.