MI Muslims Rally Against Supreme Court Travel Ban Decision

Supreme Court Upholds Donald Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0, Says POTUS ‘Possesses An Extraordinary Power’

Ferguson, Inslee issue joint statement on Supreme Court's Janus ruling

The US supreme court has upheld Donald Trump's ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries - rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded the president's authority.

In his concurrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion and noted that it's "imperative" for government officials to "adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its purposes". United States-the infamous decision validating the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II-as among the Court's most deeply misguided decisions. Mr Trump, as a candidate, had called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

Lower courts had blocked the travel ban, the third version of a policy Trump first pursued a week after taking office a year ago. Chad was originally on the list but it was recently removed after having met baseline security requirements.

The travel ban case was argued on April 25, with the court's conservative majority signaling support for Trump's policy in a significant test of presidential powers.

The American Civil Liberties Union weighed in on Twitter, saying, "This is not the first time the Court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it".

Some judges have criticized their colleagues for citing Trump's campaign statements calling for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.in rulings on the travel ban, arguing they should only evaluate the text of his order. And a second story: "Sonia Sotomayor Delivers Sharp Dissent Over Ruling".

Lower American courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the USA top court reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced today.

"The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who can not be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices", Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

"We need to keep out every unsafe person who tries to come in this country, but to categorically brand people because of their religion or their background or country they're from is just not the way we should do things in America".

In Tuesday's 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has broad authority to regulate immigration despite concerns that his travel ban unfairly targets Muslim countries.

More news: Pete Davidson confirms engagement to Ariana Grande

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with critics' arguments, but in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court disagreed and overturned the lower court's injunction.

Why it's suspended: Somalia is grappling with "a persistent terrorist threat", and the U.S. government calls Somalia "a terrorist safe haven", the White House said. It means that the current ban can remain in effect and that Mr Trump could potentially add more countries.

The dissent also states that "a reasonably observer would conclude that [the ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus".

In recent days, Trump has used seemingly coded language - including "invaders" and "infests" - to describe the Latino migrants illegally crossing the border into the United States.

Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal, who represented the state of Hawaii and other challengers in the Supreme Court case involving Trump's travel ban, said he's disappointed with the decision.

Today's Court ruling complicates California's efforts to empower women with information about their healthcare.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that the decision was "critical to ensuring the continued authority of President Trump - and all future presidents - to protect the American people".

Look, I get why the travel ban-revised after the original one was blocked by the courts-is so controversial, given that it's aimed at majority Muslim countries. "And we are going to need to show how wrong this court was to totally ignore the anti-Muslim statements by this president, and to totally ignore that we are a country of checks and balances".

But the majority found the ban could be upheld, and that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on an establishment clause claim, despite acknowledging and cataloguing some of the president's past anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Latest News