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.
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.
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.
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.