After the court ruled last week that only parts of President Donald Trump’s latest travel ban could be enacted, the policy is back at the Supreme Court. The White House asked the court on Monday to permit the ban to be fully implemented.
The third and last version of the policy partially limits the issuance of visas to citizens of eight countries considered to pose a terrorist threat to the U.S. Of those, six are Muslim countries, which prompted critics to claim the policy is nothing more than a version of the Muslim ban promised by the president during last year’s campaign.
Administration lawyers deny there is a connection between the directives and Trump’s vow, though some of his statements prove otherwise, according to Politico. Last week’s ruling of the appeals court means that the ban applies only to citizens of the eight countries who do not have family or formal connections to the U.S.
The third version was announced at the end of September after federal courts impeded Trump’s two previous bans. The administration claimed it was differed from previous ones in that it was “based on national-security and foreign-affairs objectives, not religious animus,” and that it was aimed at protecting the United States from Islamist militants’ attacks.
The state of Hawaii made an effort to block these restrictions by suing, arguing that Trump does not have the authority to impose these limitations on six of the eight countries.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, on the other hand, argued that “the [Hawaii] district court’s decision improperly second-guesses those findings and disables the Executive from fully responding to existing and identified national-security risks.” He further claimed that changes made to the third version of the policy, such as the addition of non-Muslim countries, clearly show it is not based on religious prejudice.
The Justice Department will most likely also seek a stay of the travel ban sued in Maryland.
Be the first to comment