US court allows Trump’s travel ban to go into full effect
The US Supreme Court handed a legal victory to Donald Trump, ruling that his travel ban can be fully enforced pending an appeal.
Mr Trump's ban, now in its third iteration, bars travel to the US by residents of six predominantly Muslim countries - Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.
Seven of the court's nine justices agreed to lift two injunctions imposed by lower appeal courts two months ago that had partially blocked the ban while legal challenges to it continue.
The ruling meant the open-ended policy could take full effect while those legal challenges are resolved. It was not a final ruling.
A White House spokesman said: "We are not surprised by today's Supreme Court decision permitting immediate enforcement of the president's proclamation limiting travel from countries presenting heightened risks of terrorism.
"The proclamation is lawful and essential to protecting our homeland. We look forward to presenting a fuller defence of the proclamation as the pending cases work their way through the courts."
In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the Supreme Court's action "a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people."
Mr Sessions said the Trump administration was heartened that a clear majority of the justices "allowed the president's lawful proclamation protecting our country's national security to go into full effect."
Two of the Supreme Court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said they would have denied the Trump administration's request to lift the injunctions.
Mr Trump announced the latest version of the ban in September, which led to immediate challenges in US appeals courts in Virginia and California.
Opponents in those cases argued that the measure targeted Muslims in violation of the US Constitution, and did not advance security goals as the government claimed.
They convinced the two appeals courts to put implementation of the ban on hold while they and government lawyers argued out the case.
But the Trump administration has now secured support from the Supreme Court to move ahead with implementing it while the appeals in Virginia and California continue.
Hearings are expected in both those cases this week, meaning the ban could wind its way back to to the Supreme Court again in a matter of months.
Ahead of the Supreme Court's decision on Monday lawyers for the Trump administration had argued the policy was crucial to protect US national security, and that it was based on a "comprehensive" worldwide review.
The US Justice Department argued that it "justifies the president’s finding that the national interest warrants the exclusion of certain foreign nationals, and conclusively rebuts respondents’ claims that the entry restrictions were motivated by animus rather than protecting national security".
The state of Hawaii and the International Refugee Assistance Project, which had opposed the ban, argued to the Supreme Court that "the president’s third travel ban, like his first and his second, is irreconcilable with the immigration laws and the Constitution".
"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret - he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter," American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Omar Jadwat said, referring to the president re-tweeting anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British party leader.
"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," Jadwat added.
Source: The Telegraph
