US Supreme Court refuses emergency injunction against travel ban

The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to grant an emergency injunction against the travel ban passed by Trump Administration in a 7-2 ruling.

The ban allows the United States to categorically refuse entry visas to travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, North Korea and Venezuela. The ban had initially been imposed in January of 2017, but its introduction was chaotic, and it was blocked by lower courts in multiple States. It was again put forward in July of 2017, making exceptions for people in the banned countries who have a “bona fide” reason to visit the US, such as documented business purposes or close family relationships. The second attempt at the introduction of the ban was also met with resistance from lower courts but was eventually allowed come into limited affect over the summer.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the imposition of the ban has been considered a blow for anti-discrimination activists, who intend to protest the decision. The ruling was not on the constitutionality of the ban, but found that an emergency injunction against the ban was unnecessary until the Supreme Courts weight the ban on its constitutional merits in the coming months. Both Ms Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the majority ruling.

Several smaller US courts will be holding arguments on the ban later this week including the ninth US Circuit Court in San Francisco and the fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. Both courts are dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis. A quick decision by the appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue by the end of term in June 2018.

Click here for a copy of the order

Click here for earlier PILA coverage of the travel ban in the US.

Click here for further commentary on the decision. 



Sustaining Partners