DFW Attorneys Ready To Assist Those Affected By Travel Ban

Share

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump can for ahead with a limited version of his ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

The ruling also said it would permit a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect, allowing the government to bar entry to refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity.

But the court's ruling also underscores the view that Trump was overreaching when he banned all travel into the United States by certain refugees and foreign nationals from six countries.

Anchorage immigration attorney Lara Nations met with Channel 2 News to explain how Alaskans could see changes from the temporary travel ban, which is expected to be implemented by Thursday.

MSU has 18 worldwide students from the six predominantly Muslim countries affected by the Trump administration's travel ban.

Aside from this, the Justices will still hear arguments in this case in October. That would include students who have been admitted to a USA school and workers who have accepted an offer of employment from an American company, the court said.

The case is Trump's first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. This will affect people in six Muslim populated countries: Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the injunctions on the ban, saying the government could enforce its measure against "foreign nationals unconnected to the United States" without causing injury to the parties who filed suit.


The first travel ban in January took effect immediately and caught many off guard. These people are largely skilled workers or university students who wanted to go to the United States, but set their sights on Canada instead after Mr. Trump's executive order.

Chin, who acknowledged the national security and presidential power arguments, said it was "premature" for Trump to declare victory. The court said a "close familial relationship is required".

The court suggested that the administration could complete its internal reviews over the summer, raising the prospect that the case could be moot by the time it was argued.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship", the decision reads.

Leon Fresco, deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation in President Barack Obama's Justice Department, said the effect would seem to be limited to two types of visa seekers who don't have family or other US ties: those seeking to come to the U.S.as visitors, or those seeking to enter through a lottery meant for people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S. He said his group has no idea how the administration plans to judge family relationships and a hard line could mean a significant number of Iranians will be kept out the country for the time being.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was "rooted in religious animus" toward Muslims and pointed to Trump's campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.

It's a compromise but the travel ban could be hard to enforce, according to ABC News' legal consultant and law professor Kate Shaw.

Share