This article is from the source 'guardian' 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 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/12/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-refugee-policy
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Supreme court sides with Trump on refugee policy in travel ban case | Supreme court sides with Trump on refugee policy in travel ban case |
| (about 1 month later) | |
| The supreme court is allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees, agreeing to block a lower court ruling that would have eased the ban and allowed up to 24,000 refugees to enter the country before the end of October. | The supreme court is allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees, agreeing to block a lower court ruling that would have eased the ban and allowed up to 24,000 refugees to enter the country before the end of October. |
| The order on Tuesday was not the court’s last word on the travel policy that Donald Trump first rolled out in January. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on 10 October on the legality of the bans on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries and refugees anywhere in the world. | The order on Tuesday was not the court’s last word on the travel policy that Donald Trump first rolled out in January. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on 10 October on the legality of the bans on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries and refugees anywhere in the world. |
| It is unclear, though, what will be left for the court to decide. The 90-day travel ban lapses in late September and the 120-day refugee ban will expire a month later. | It is unclear, though, what will be left for the court to decide. The 90-day travel ban lapses in late September and the 120-day refugee ban will expire a month later. |
| The administration has yet to say whether it will seek to renew the bans, make them permanent or expand the travel ban to other countries. | The administration has yet to say whether it will seek to renew the bans, make them permanent or expand the travel ban to other countries. |
| Lower courts have ruled that the bans violate the constitution and federal immigration law. The high court has agreed to review those rulings. Its intervention so far has been to evaluate what parts of the policy can take effect in the meantime. | Lower courts have ruled that the bans violate the constitution and federal immigration law. The high court has agreed to review those rulings. Its intervention so far has been to evaluate what parts of the policy can take effect in the meantime. |
| The justices said in June that the administration could not enforce the bans against people who have a “bona fide” relationship with people or entities in the United States. The justices declined to define the required relationships more precisely. | The justices said in June that the administration could not enforce the bans against people who have a “bona fide” relationship with people or entities in the United States. The justices declined to define the required relationships more precisely. |
| A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US circuit court of appeals upheld a district judge’s order that would have allowed refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the US had agreed to take them in. | A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US circuit court of appeals upheld a district judge’s order that would have allowed refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the US had agreed to take them in. |
| The administration objected, saying the relationship between refugees and resettlement agencies should not count. The high court’s unsigned, one-sentence order agreed with the administration, at least for now. | The administration objected, saying the relationship between refugees and resettlement agencies should not count. The high court’s unsigned, one-sentence order agreed with the administration, at least for now. |
| The appeals court also upheld another part of the judge’s ruling that applies to the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. | The appeals court also upheld another part of the judge’s ruling that applies to the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. |
| Grandparents and cousins of people already in the US cannot be excluded from the country under the travel ban, as the Trump administration had wanted. The administration did not ask the supreme court to block that part of the ruling. | Grandparents and cousins of people already in the US cannot be excluded from the country under the travel ban, as the Trump administration had wanted. The administration did not ask the supreme court to block that part of the ruling. |
| Trump travel ban | Trump travel ban |
| US immigration | US immigration |
| Refugees | Refugees |
| US supreme court | US supreme court |
| US politics | US politics |
| news | news |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |