The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination. The executive order signed by Trump imposes a four-month travel ban on refugees entering the United States and a 90-day hold on travelers from Syria, Iran and five other Muslim-majority countries.
Chin said he believes in the president's power to protect national security but not when it discriminates against people due to their national origin or religion.
The sun flares in the camera lens as it rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, Sunday, June 25, 2017. If people from those countries don't have a bona fide connection to someone in the United States they'll likely be turned away.
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it was lifting injunctions against the president's executive order banning entry to the U.S. from several Muslim-majority countries, including Somalia.
"As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the objective of evading the executive order".
Trump's revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar from USA entry travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days.
A 120-day ban on refugees is also being allowed to take effect. Since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up a system for vetting refugees to the United States, no person accepted as a refugee has been implicated in a fatal terrorist attack. "It preserves the authority of the Supreme Court to say what the law is-even though, by its own terms, it fails to say what the law is".
When the Supreme Court returns to this case in the fall, we expect that it will strike the entire ban down. The ban is expected to take 72 hours to take effect.
But the justices said those who already have a connection to the US - either a job offer, an admission to an educational program or a close family connection - will be exempted from the 90-day ban on travel from six countries as well as the 120-day pause on refugees.
Then the Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor and suddenly the pundi-crats are shrugging and telling us, "Of course they did!"
Many commentators have suggested that this is essentially a complete win for those who oppose Trump's travel ban. 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 plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name.
"Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country", Thomas wrote, joined by two fellow conservative justices.
The revised ban does not apply to legal permanent residents and those with current valid visas, but legal experts said it will apply to those who have yet to apply for entry to the U.S. It called the announcement "mixed news" in a statement, praising it for limiting some of the executive order's reach but criticizing the court for partially allowing the executive order to be enforced.
Importantly, the court did not decide that the ban is legal regarding those individuals, only that the government may implement that limited version of the ban while it considers the legal questions.
"We expect our leaders to be fearless enough to stand up for human rights and against policies that put lives at risk, while perpetuating hate and fear", NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan said in a statement.