Trump has said the ban is needed to protect the United States from attacks by Islamic militants. But with five conservatives on the nine-member Supreme Court, Trump seemed likely to be on the winning side when the justices issue their ruling by the end of June. The current version, announced in September, prohibits entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Protesters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC, U.S., April 25, 2018, while the court justices consider case regarding presidential powers as it weighs the legality of President Donald Trump's latest travel ban targeting people from Muslim-majority countries. Travel ban opponents who attended the argument compared a potential ruling upholding Trump's travel ban with the court's heavily criticized 1944 decision that endorsed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two.
Supreme Court hears Trump travel ban arguments
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments for President Trump's travel ban, with conservative justices voicing skepticism that the ban, which restricts travelers from five predominantly Muslim countries, is prejudiced. "If you look at what was done, it does not look at all like a Muslim ban," Justice Samuel Alito said. "There are other justifications that jump out as to why these particular countries were put on the list." Since December, the third version of Trump's travel ban has been in effect. The justices are expected to hand down their decision in the case by late June.
The Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold the president's travel ban
as declared in ONE year ago, stung by what he termed "ridiculous" judicial defeats for his travel ban and sanctuary city policies, Donald Trump tweeted, "see you in the Supreme Court!" On April 25th, Mr Trump followed through on that promise. After lower courts repeatedly froze Mr Trump's edicts for discriminating against Muslims, the travel ban found a friendlier audience among the nine justices. If the restrictions were a "Muslim ban" in disguise, they were "the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine". Is Mr Trump's proclamation really, as Mr Katyal characterised it, "a power no president in 100 years has exercised"? Justice Neil Gorsuch, Mr Trump's appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts also voiced scepticism about the challengers' case against the travel rules.Author
Hi, Its me Hafeez. A webdesigner, blogspot developer and UI/UX Designer. I am a certified Themeforest top Author and Front-End Developer. I'am business speaker, marketer, Blogger and Javascript Programmer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment