SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Court decided to reinstate a partial form of the ban, a move sure to prompt further grassroots opposition. (Photo: Patrick T. Fallon/Reuters)
Supreme Court Partially Lifts Block on Trump's 'Bigoted' Travel Ban
"We'll be ready," said the ACLU in response to the announcement
Jun 26, 2017
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 Post reports:
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."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
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 Post reports:
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 Post reports:
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."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.