Trump’s travel ban—intended to limit travel from from six different Muslim countries for 90 days while suspending the national refugee program for 120 days—has already been shut down twice by federal courts. Today, the Supreme Court itself announced that it would rule once and for all on the legality of the president’s seemingly anti-Muslim executive order, The NYT reports.
Until the case is heard in October, the court has ruled that elements of the travel ban will be put into effect. Essentially, any foreigners without pre-existing American ties will not be granted visas. So if they’ve never before visited, have no family or can’t prove any business ties, they will not be allowed into the country.
The Supreme Court believes this will be an easy distinction, writing in a statement:
In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
Of course, Justice Clarence Thomas—backed by Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch— disagreed, stating:
I fear that the court’s remedy will prove unworkable. 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. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid’ the executive order.
To be fair, he isn’t exactly wrong. By enacting any part of the travel ban, several lawsuits will likely pop up as affected parties try and prove they have ties to America somehow. It’s likely to be a huge mess, and one that’ll exist until the Supreme Court gives an official ruling. Hopefully, their decision will end the ban permanently, and set a precedent for limiting the power of an office that has been given too much leeway this century.
The Supreme Court will be reviewing both earlier lower court rulings that deemed the ban to be unconstitutional in one instance and beyond the scope of the president’s powers in the other. The court’s decision is likely to have massive implications on the power of the presidential office in the future.