The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump's travel bans are "well within his constitutional rights to impose."
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump's travel bans are "well within his constitutional rights to impose."
In early 2017 courts in the U.S. ruled against President Trumpâ€™s proposals (issued via executive order) to temporarily ban travel from six Muslim majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen), saying the plan improperly targeted religion. After a 3 June 2017 attack in London that killed seven people and left several dozen others injured, President Trump took to Twitter to call for prompt U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) review of his â€œwatered down Travel Banâ€: < The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court â€“ & seek much tougher version! â€” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017 > On 5 June 2017, the Americaâ€™s Last Line of Defense web site published an article positing that Supreme Court review of the travel ban had been completed, and that the nationâ€™s highest court had upheld the ban as constitutional: < The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that the Presidentâ€™s travel bans are well within his constitutional rights to impose and because of that, America will be a much safer place. Not only did the court overturn the lower courtâ€™s decision on the ban, it also restored the order to its original glory, banning terrorists from 7 countries and allowing President Trump â€œall of the authority granted a President in matters of immigration.â€ The ruling makes significant changes to the way things are going to be done at airports. No longer will you have to be inconveniently pulled out of line at random because we have to search the same number of regular people as we do Muslims. Agents at the airport will be able to profile how they see fit. Without the influx of refugees applying for asylum at the airport, since they simply wonâ€™t be coming here. the TSA can work on rooting out the people who want to do us harm who already live here. > There was no truth to this report at the time it was published. As of June 2017, the Supreme Court had yet to rule on the ban. However, the high court did narrow the scope of previous stays on the ban in a 26 June 2017 unsigned opinion which said that the ban would be in effect for residents from those nations who lacked a â€œbona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.â€ The court said that foreign nationals could enter the U.S. to â€œlive with or visit a family member.â€ Other exceptions to the ban would include students admitted to a U.S.-based university, lecturers heading into the country for an appearance, or someone moving to the US after accepting a job offer. The court also said that it would hear arguments regarding the issue in October. This report originated with Americaâ€™s Last Line of Defense, a fake news site whose a disclaimer notes that they are a â€œsatirical publicationâ€ created to â€œpresent fiction as fact,â€ and that their â€œsources donâ€™t actually exist.â€
"supreme" AND "court" AND "rules" AND "travel" AND "ban"