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
A woman wearing a hijab stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court, October 11, 2017 in Washington, DC. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries by lifting injunctions imposed by lower courts. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Allowing Muslim Ban to Go into Effect, US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump
In a 7-2 decision, justices lift lower-court rulings that had imposed injunction against discriminatory travel and immigration policy
Dec 04, 2017
This a breaking news development and will be updated...
"Shameful... Another stain added to our nation's history." --Faiza N. Ali, social justice activist
In 7-2 ruling handed down Monday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow full enforcement of a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries by lifting injunctions imposed by lower courts.
As the Associated Press reports, "The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a 'bona fide' relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded."
As the ALCU notes, the ruling does not mean the court has sided with the Trump administration on the merits of the "Muslim Ban" itself--a policy that sparked fierce protests when it was first announced earlier this year and which civil liberties advocates have widely condemned--but instead stayed orders from lower courts which said that enforcement of the ban should be on hold while the various challenges to the policy made their way through the system.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting voices on the bench.
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, had this reaction:
"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret -- he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down."
Others critics of the ban were swift in expressing their disappointment, but also explained that the order does not contain anything about the court's overall assessment of the case:
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
This a breaking news development and will be updated...
"Shameful... Another stain added to our nation's history." --Faiza N. Ali, social justice activist
In 7-2 ruling handed down Monday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow full enforcement of a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries by lifting injunctions imposed by lower courts.
As the Associated Press reports, "The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a 'bona fide' relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded."
As the ALCU notes, the ruling does not mean the court has sided with the Trump administration on the merits of the "Muslim Ban" itself--a policy that sparked fierce protests when it was first announced earlier this year and which civil liberties advocates have widely condemned--but instead stayed orders from lower courts which said that enforcement of the ban should be on hold while the various challenges to the policy made their way through the system.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting voices on the bench.
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, had this reaction:
"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret -- he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down."
Others critics of the ban were swift in expressing their disappointment, but also explained that the order does not contain anything about the court's overall assessment of the case:
This a breaking news development and will be updated...
"Shameful... Another stain added to our nation's history." --Faiza N. Ali, social justice activist
In 7-2 ruling handed down Monday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow full enforcement of a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries by lifting injunctions imposed by lower courts.
As the Associated Press reports, "The ban applies to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a 'bona fide' relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded."
As the ALCU notes, the ruling does not mean the court has sided with the Trump administration on the merits of the "Muslim Ban" itself--a policy that sparked fierce protests when it was first announced earlier this year and which civil liberties advocates have widely condemned--but instead stayed orders from lower courts which said that enforcement of the ban should be on hold while the various challenges to the policy made their way through the system.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting voices on the bench.
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, had this reaction:
"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret -- he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down."
Others critics of the ban were swift in expressing their disappointment, but also explained that the order does not contain anything about the court's overall assessment of the case:
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.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy