
The Court decided to reinstate a partial form of the ban, a move sure to prompt further grassroots opposition. (Photo: Patrick T. Fallon/Reuters)
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The Court decided to reinstate a partial form of the ban, a move sure to prompt further grassroots opposition. (Photo: Patrick T. Fallon/Reuters)
The Supreme Court on Monday announced it would hear arguments on President Donald Trump's proposed travel ban--also known as the Muslim Ban 2.0--which had previously been blocked by two federal appellate courts, one of which ruled the ban is "rooted in religious animus" and therefore unconstitutional.
Arguments in the case are set to be heard in October.
Commentators were quick to point out that the Supreme Court's announcement contained a victory for the Trump administration, as the court decided to reinstate portions of the Muslim ban, exempting only those with "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."
The Washington Postreports:
The action means that the administration may impose a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States, with the exceptions noted by the court.
Trump said last week the ban would go into effect 72 hours after receiving an approval from the courts.
\u201cSupreme Court effectively reinstates Trump's travel ban unless you have a relative inside the U.S. or other special circumstances\u201d— Judd Legum (@Judd Legum) 1498487648
Human rights groups and immigrant advocates have denounced the travel ban as a "blatant attempt to write bigotry into law." Now that the Supreme Court has reinstated a limited form of the ban, grassroots opposition is expected to surge once more.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), responding to the Supreme Court's announcement, said simply: "We'll be ready."
In a statement, Amnesty International USA executive director Margaret Huang said it has "always been crystal clear that this policy was based on discrimination."
"Reinstating any part of this ban could create chaos in the nation's airports and tear families apart," Huang concluded. "Rather than keeping anyone safe, this ban demonizes millions of innocent people and creates anxiety and instability for people who want to visit a relative, work, study, return to the country they call home, or just travel without fear."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The Supreme Court on Monday announced it would hear arguments on President Donald Trump's proposed travel ban--also known as the Muslim Ban 2.0--which had previously been blocked by two federal appellate courts, one of which ruled the ban is "rooted in religious animus" and therefore unconstitutional.
Arguments in the case are set to be heard in October.
Commentators were quick to point out that the Supreme Court's announcement contained a victory for the Trump administration, as the court decided to reinstate portions of the Muslim ban, exempting only those with "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."
The Washington Postreports:
The action means that the administration may impose a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States, with the exceptions noted by the court.
Trump said last week the ban would go into effect 72 hours after receiving an approval from the courts.
\u201cSupreme Court effectively reinstates Trump's travel ban unless you have a relative inside the U.S. or other special circumstances\u201d— Judd Legum (@Judd Legum) 1498487648
Human rights groups and immigrant advocates have denounced the travel ban as a "blatant attempt to write bigotry into law." Now that the Supreme Court has reinstated a limited form of the ban, grassroots opposition is expected to surge once more.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), responding to the Supreme Court's announcement, said simply: "We'll be ready."
In a statement, Amnesty International USA executive director Margaret Huang said it has "always been crystal clear that this policy was based on discrimination."
"Reinstating any part of this ban could create chaos in the nation's airports and tear families apart," Huang concluded. "Rather than keeping anyone safe, this ban demonizes millions of innocent people and creates anxiety and instability for people who want to visit a relative, work, study, return to the country they call home, or just travel without fear."
The Supreme Court on Monday announced it would hear arguments on President Donald Trump's proposed travel ban--also known as the Muslim Ban 2.0--which had previously been blocked by two federal appellate courts, one of which ruled the ban is "rooted in religious animus" and therefore unconstitutional.
Arguments in the case are set to be heard in October.
Commentators were quick to point out that the Supreme Court's announcement contained a victory for the Trump administration, as the court decided to reinstate portions of the Muslim ban, exempting only those with "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."
The Washington Postreports:
The action means that the administration may impose a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States, with the exceptions noted by the court.
Trump said last week the ban would go into effect 72 hours after receiving an approval from the courts.
\u201cSupreme Court effectively reinstates Trump's travel ban unless you have a relative inside the U.S. or other special circumstances\u201d— Judd Legum (@Judd Legum) 1498487648
Human rights groups and immigrant advocates have denounced the travel ban as a "blatant attempt to write bigotry into law." Now that the Supreme Court has reinstated a limited form of the ban, grassroots opposition is expected to surge once more.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), responding to the Supreme Court's announcement, said simply: "We'll be ready."
In a statement, Amnesty International USA executive director Margaret Huang said it has "always been crystal clear that this policy was based on discrimination."
"Reinstating any part of this ban could create chaos in the nation's airports and tear families apart," Huang concluded. "Rather than keeping anyone safe, this ban demonizes millions of innocent people and creates anxiety and instability for people who want to visit a relative, work, study, return to the country they call home, or just travel without fear."