Trump Government defends immigrant order at Supreme Court

Published on : Friday, August 11, 2017

executiveOn Thursday President Donald Trump’s administration defended the temporary travel ban with the US Supreme Court, emphasizing on the executive’s power to remove foreigners from the United States.



The Justice department mentioned that Trump’s vow to ban Muslims during the last year’s presidential campaign is legally if not rhetorically irrelevant. An 84-page brief served as the opening salvo in a Supreme Court case scheduled for oral arguments for two months from Thursday onwards.

The revised order was blocked by two federal appeals court from taking effect until the US Supreme Court ruled in June that it would be proceeded on a limited basis.


On October 10,  the nation’s highest court will hear the oral arguments about the lawfulness of the ban along with a brief on the legal position the government intends to implement.



The state of Hawaii and refugee organizations challenged the executive order claim citing that it was discriminatory against Muslims.



The government hammered against the broad ruling  by the  9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked the ban. It supported that the campaign statement made by the president when he was  a private citizen should not be considered.



Trump supported the order was important to review vetting procedures to save the country from terrorist attacks.


The probe on the president’s motives in decision about the national security will lead to inappropriate ‘judicial psychoanalysis’.



As stated by the government the Congress had given the president the authority to limit refugee admissions and bar the entry of any foreigner or group of foreigners it would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.


Parts of the revised March executive order will be effective from June 29 the Supreme Court ruled. Visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen  related to a U.S. citizen or entity will be allowed an entry.



But there will be a round of legal sparring since the government intends to exclude grandparents and other family members as who would be allowed in.



The Supreme Court further added that though the litigation will continue over the enforcement of ban in lower courts grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law of people from the six countries would be allowed.


However, refugees with relationships with U.S. resettlement agencies would not be permitted.



Attorney Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii in its challenge to the ban, stated in an email  that he was looking forward to the Supreme Court hearing the case in October.


The acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued over the order’s text and operation and mentioned it to  entirely religion neutral.

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

arrow2Follow TTW
facebook-logo  twitter-logo  LinkedIn_logo  stumbleupon-logo   rss_logo 
ttw_blogger_logo  ttw_blogger_logo  ttw_blogger_logo


  • 02 WTM London 2018
  • 03 imexamerica 2018
  • 07 miltcongress 2018
  • 08 theleisureshow 18
  • 09 cibtm 2018
  • 09 Seatrade Cruise Med 2018
  • 10 ITE-HCMC 2018
  • 13 aite 2018
  • 15 TravelDaily TDC 18
  • 16 OTDYKH 2018
  • 17 Hotel Show dubai 18
  • 18 hospitalityqatar 18
  • 18 Hotel Management Asia Summit 2018
  • 18 thincindonesia 2018
  • 19 bricsaconsulting 2018
  • 20 CITE_TTW 2018
  • 20 europecongress 18
  • 20 sahicsouthamerica 2018
  • 21 bitmchina 2018
  • 22 Hotel Management Singapore Summit 18
  • 23 PTM 2018
  • 30 PATA


Get our toolbar!
Review on