This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39044403

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
Trump travel ban: Questions about the revised executive order Trump travel ban: What does this ruling mean?
(7 months later)
The US Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump's revised travel ban to go into full effect - even as legal challenges continue in lower courts. The US Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump's revised travel ban and overruled legal challenges from lower courts.
This is the government's third version of a controversial policy since Mr Trump took office in January.This is the government's third version of a controversial policy since Mr Trump took office in January.
Who is affected?Who is affected?
The latest presidential proclamation - which was issued in September - bans nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US. The latest presidential proclamation - which was issued in September - bans nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.
It also covers travellers from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela. But lower courts had already allowed those provisions to take effect.It also covers travellers from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela. But lower courts had already allowed those provisions to take effect.
What happens now? Chad was removed from the list in April.
In its ruling on 4 December, the Supreme Court approved a request from Mr Trump's lawyers to lift partial restrictions on the ban imposed by lower courts. This third version of the travel ban has been in operation since December, when the Supreme Court allowed it to go into force as legal challenges went on.
It said those restrictions should now be put on hold while the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, and the US Court of appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, California, weigh the cases. What just happened?
The two courts are expected to hear arguments in the coming days. The 5-4 ruling at the highest court in the US reverses a series of lower court decisions that had said the ban was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's decision does not affect the lower courts' consideration of the merits of challenges to the latest travel ban. It hands a major victory to President Trump, who made immigration a central plank of his campaign and introduced the first version of his travel ban just one week into office.
Chief Justice John Roberts gave the landmark opinion and the court's other four conservative judges also ruled in favour of the president.
The four liberal justices dissented.
What about the two previous versions of the ban?What about the two previous versions of the ban?
The original order issued in January barred people from seven majority-Muslim countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya - from entering the US for 90 days. The original order issued in January 2017 barred people from seven majority-Muslim countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya - from entering the US for 90 days.
It also halted refugee resettlement for 120 days and banned Syrian refugees indefinitely.It also halted refugee resettlement for 120 days and banned Syrian refugees indefinitely.
The travel ban was later blocked by federal courts. Chaos ensued at airports, where there was some confusion about enforcement.
That travel ban was later blocked by federal courts.
The revised order in March removed Iraq from the list, after it agreed to boost co-operation with the US, and it also lifted the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.The revised order in March removed Iraq from the list, after it agreed to boost co-operation with the US, and it also lifted the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.
In June, the Supreme Court allowed that version of the policy to take partial effect. It was also struck down but in June 2017, the Supreme Court allowed that version of the policy to take partial effect, against travellers without close links to the US.
In its ruling the court said: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. A third version of the ban was issued in September, taking Sudan off the list but adding Chad, North Korea and Venezuelan government officials.
"All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]."
The ruling also said it would permit a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US to go into effect, allowing the government to bar entry to refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity.
Meanwhile, Sudan was taken off the list in September.
Why were those countries chosen?Why were those countries chosen?
The latest travel ban says that the countries "remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory".The latest travel ban says that the countries "remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory".
Critics have noted that major attacks such as the 9/11 New York attacks, the Boston marathon bombing and the Orlando nightclub attack were carried out by people from countries not on the list, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kyrgyzstan, or by US-born attackers.Critics have noted that major attacks such as the 9/11 New York attacks, the Boston marathon bombing and the Orlando nightclub attack were carried out by people from countries not on the list, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kyrgyzstan, or by US-born attackers.
More on Trump's travel ban Is it a 'Muslim ban'?
Is it a "Muslim ban"? This was a crucial question in the legal battle, as six out of eight countries on the list are predominantly Muslim.
This has been crucial question in the legal battle, as six out of eight countries on the list are predominantly Muslim. In one early challenge, a US district judge in Virginia ruled the first order was unconstitutional because it had religious bias at its heart - an appeals court in the same state ruled along the same lines on the second ban too.
On 14 February, a US district judge in Virginia ruled the first order was unconstitutional because it had religious bias at its heart - an appeals court in the same state ruled along the same lines on the second ban too.
Ruling on the second version, the Hawaii court also dismissed the government's argument that the ban is not anti-Muslim because it targets all individuals from the six countries, regardless of religion, and the countries themselves represent only a small fraction of the world's Muslim population.Ruling on the second version, the Hawaii court also dismissed the government's argument that the ban is not anti-Muslim because it targets all individuals from the six countries, regardless of religion, and the countries themselves represent only a small fraction of the world's Muslim population.
"The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed," the court ruling said, pointing out that the countries' populations were between 90% and 99% Muslim."The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed," the court ruling said, pointing out that the countries' populations were between 90% and 99% Muslim.
The court also cited statements made by Mr Trump, such as a 2015 press release calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".The court also cited statements made by Mr Trump, such as a 2015 press release calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".
But the Department of Justice has said a distinction should be made between things said as a candidate and as president.But the Department of Justice has said a distinction should be made between things said as a candidate and as president.