Airbnb comes out against Supreme Court decision upholding Trump travel ban

Airbnb comes out against Supreme Court decision upholding Trump travel ban

Airbnb comes out against Supreme Court decision upholding Trump travel ban

One argument the Trump administration made to the Supreme Court this spring to prove the legality of its travel ban on several majority-Muslim countries was that it had a robust waiver process that would allow people in on a case-by-case basis.

The court, ever mindful of the impact of its rulings across not just the country but the world, wanted to make very clear that in upholding Trump's travel ban, it was not sending any sort of signal about its own views on Islam or religion more generally.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, said the ruling would "go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's great failures".

But in the majority opinion on Tuesday, chief justice John Roberts argues that those statements are irrelevant, and cites a 12-page report from the White House that outlines information-sharing, documentation, and consular-processing issues in the restricted countries. Some travelers were detained at airports, while others were allowed to enter the U.S.

It means that the current ban can remain in effect and that Mr Trump could potentially add more countries.

US President Donald Trump has finally received the Supreme Court's approval for his travel ban on select Muslim countries, with the apex court upholding the Trump White House's travel ban.

Following the court's decision, advocacy and rights groups said the country would see an unprecedented number of families separated and warned of an increase in attacks against Muslims.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to what she called "stark parallels" between the 1944 Korematsu decision and Tuesday's ruling, which upheld Trump administration restrictions on would-be visitors from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.

The Supreme Court allowed it to go largely into effect in December while the legal challenge continued.

The administration said that the ban was the result of carefully considering national security interests, but critics argued it was fulfilling a campaign promise for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

In a strident dissent that she read from in court, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there were "stark parallels" with the court's now discredited 1944 decision that upheld U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two.

Serena Williams seeded 25th for Wimbledon
Unless a seed withdraws before the start Cibulkova could now potentially face Halep, or Williams, in the first round. Slovakian Cibulkova had been left less than impressed by the prospect ahead of the seeding announcement.

Sotomayor wrote that based on the evidence in the case "a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus".

Nevertheless, this marks a significant victory for Mr Trump - and for presidential power to set immigration policy in general - albeit by the narrowest of margins.

Trump issued his first travel restriction order a week after taking office.

Trump signed a proclamation as the third version of the ban September 24 after a review of worldwide vetting of travelers. It also applies to North Korea and Venezuela, but those provisions were not challenged in court.

The Court's decision affirms President Donald Trump's authority to ban noncitizens from entry into the United States if he finds it necessary for the country's protection.

Federal courts again blocked the order, but the Supreme Court upheld parts of the ban and scheduled oral arguments in October. "United States", the infamous 1944 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the USA government's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

In one instance, she pointed out the president's November 2017 re-tweets of three anti-Muslim propaganda videos.

Trump first introduced the executive order the month he became president, in January 2017, with plans to put it into effect nearly immediately, setting off a series of protests in airports across the country.

In a significant case for organized labor, the court's conservatives indicated opposition during arguments on February 26 to so-called agency fees that some states require non-members to pay to public-sector unions.

The court rejected a challenge that the ban discriminated against Muslims or exceeded Trump's authority.

Related news

[an error occurred while processing the directive]