Today`s decision confirms what has been clear since Trump took office. Throughout his presidential campaign, he repeatedly promised to block Muslim immigration and even announced a specific plan to achieve this goal: a nationality-based travel ban for people from predominantly Muslim countries. As promised, a week into his presidency, he issued an unprecedented ban on people from seven predominantly Muslim countries without consulting federal authorities. Three years after President Trump first signed into law his Muslim travel ban — an executive order banning travel from several predominantly Muslim countries — its dangerous effects continue to grow, further institutionalizing xenophobia and Islamophobia in the United States. Zainab Chaudry (left to right), Zainab Arain and Megan Fair of the Council on American-Islamic Relations appear before the Supreme Court for a rally against Trump`s travel ban. Andrew Harnik/AP Hide the legend Simply put, given these facts — and a host of other evidence — there is more than enough basis for claims against the travel ban to sue in lower courts. And we will continue to challenge it. It`s time to call on the president to end his abuse of power, honor U.S. commitments to the world`s most vulnerable refugees, and end the discriminatory travel ban. The court also ruled that the third version of the ban could be implemented, while the lower courts considered whether it was appropriate to pursue the dispute.
Since then, restrictions have blocked the movement of people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and North Korea, as well as Venezuelan politicians. Last June, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii felt that President Trump`s travel ban to a number of predominantly Muslim countries could be implemented for now, ignoring tons of evidence that it was motivated by religious hostility rather than genuine national security concerns. But the court`s decision does not completely rule out legal challenges to the policy. So let`s move forward: Earlier this month, the Brennan Center filed a lawsuit in Zakzok v. Trump, our lawsuit against the ban. Comparing Tuesday`s result to the 1944 court`s decision to uphold the legality of Japanese-American internment camps, Sotomayor noted, “By noting that the First Amendment gives way to executive policies that a reasonable observer would consider motivated by hostility toward Muslims, the majority opinion reverses the Court`s precedent and repeats the Court`s tragic mistakes. Past.
and deprives countless people of the fundamental right to religious freedom.” Like the previous two bans, version 3.0 blocks nearly all travelers from five Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia — and added a ban for travelers from North Korea and Venezuelan government officials. Shortly after the appeal decision, senior White House adviser Stephen Miller condemned federal judges who ended President Trump`s controversial travel ban, warning that the world will soon see that the president`s executive powers “will go unchallenged.” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor after reading her dissent Tuesday morning in response to the court`s confirmation of President Trump`s travel ban How did the Trump administration justify its travel bans? The ACLU-WA has filed a class-action lawsuit in a federal court in the Western District of Washington challenging President Trump`s travel ban on nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries. The lawsuit alleges that the executive order on immigration violates both the Constitution and federal law. ACLU-WA Legal Director Emily Chiang welcomed the appeals court`s decision to uphold the president`s suspension of the Muslim travel ban. In a 5-4 decision that gave wide latitude to the president`s authority, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump`s travel ban, which banned nearly all travelers from five Muslim-majority countries, as well as North Korea and Venezuela. The ACLU-WA represents refugees and asylum seekers residing in Washington who have applied for reunification with family members who have completed and passed their final security checks. The plaintiffs also include individuals who legally reside here in Washington State, but do not currently have multiple-entry visas. They are now trapped in the country, unable to visit family in their home countries or undertake educational trips for fear of not being able to return to their lives. On January 28, President Trump issued an executive order blocking refugees and travelers with passports from seven Muslim-majority countries. First, some background information on the scope of Trump v. Hawaii.
The Supreme Court has ruled on whether the travel ban can be enforced, while challenges continue in lower courts.