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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44619976

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
US Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban US Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban
(35 minutes later)
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Trump administration's travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Trump administration's travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.
Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the US top court has reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced on Tuesday.Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the US top court has reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced on Tuesday.
The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.
The court's reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration.The court's reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration.
But the travel ban has been widely criticised by refugee and human rights groups.But the travel ban has been widely criticised by refugee and human rights groups.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, which said the travel ban was "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority". Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, which said the travel ban was "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority", rejecting arguments that it was based on the fact that the countries affected were mostly Muslim.
"The Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy." "The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."
Shortly after the Supreme Court released its decision, President Donald Trump Trump shared the news from his Twitter account. Shortly after the Supreme Court released its decision, President Donald Trump shared the news from his Twitter account.
Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrant Rights Project said in a statement that the ruling was one of the Court's "great failures". What does this ruling mean?
"The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking action to rescind and dismantle Trump's Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country's most basic principles of freedom and equality." The ruling has reversed the decision of a lower court that put the travel ban on hold.
Mr Jadwat likened the Court's decision to the ruling which upheld Japanese-American internment during World War Two. The current version of the ban prevents most immigrants, refugees and visa holders from five Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen - as well as North Korea and Venezuela from entering the US.
Third time's the charm But the restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela were not part of the legal challenge.
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News The Supreme Court's decision also cements the fact that such a ban is within the president's authority to put in place - and the dissenting opinions do not contradict this.
The high court has been issuing a number of decisions this week, including a ruling against a California law that required clinics to inform women of the availability of abortions paid for by the state.
The Court ruled that the law violated the free speech rights of Christian facilities.
Third time's a charm
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News - at the scene
Despite the controversial nature of Donald Trump's travel ban, there were more abortion rights activists outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning than immigration protesters.Despite the controversial nature of Donald Trump's travel ban, there were more abortion rights activists outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning than immigration protesters.
Perhaps it's because abortion has been a contentious legal battle for decades, while the president's travel directive had been in effect, and out of the headlines, for months.Perhaps it's because abortion has been a contentious legal battle for decades, while the president's travel directive had been in effect, and out of the headlines, for months.
Attention in recent weeks has been on migrants coming across the southern US border, not visitors and prospective residents from countries like Libya, Iran, Yemen and Syria.Attention in recent weeks has been on migrants coming across the southern US border, not visitors and prospective residents from countries like Libya, Iran, Yemen and Syria.
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.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.
The five court justices said they took the president's order on its face, and separated it from his more bombastic anti-Muslim comments made on the presidential campaign trail and via Twitter.The five court justices said they took the president's order on its face, and separated it from his more bombastic anti-Muslim comments made on the presidential campaign trail and via Twitter.
The travel ban was implemented haphazardly at the start of the Trump administration and faced repeated setbacks from the US legal system. In the end, however, the president got his way - or at least enough of his way to claim success.The travel ban was implemented haphazardly at the start of the Trump administration and faced repeated setbacks from the US legal system. In the end, however, the president got his way - or at least enough of his way to claim success.
The third time turned out to be the charm.The third time turned out to be the charm.
What's the reaction?
In Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she states that the Court has failed to uphold the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment.
"It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns."
The dissent also states that "a reasonably observer would conclude that [the ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus".
The White House issued a statement from Mr Trump saying the ruling was "a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution".
"In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country."
Mr Trump also called out "hysterical commentary" from the media and Democrats over the ban.
Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrant Rights Project said in a statement that the ruling was one of the Court's "great failures".
"The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking action to rescind and dismantle Trump's Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country's most basic principles of freedom and equality."
Cornell University immigration law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr called the ruling an "uninspiring" one in a statement.
"In effect, even if the President can't persuade Congress to fund his actual wall along the U.S-Mexican border, he has erected an invisible wall for many immigrants."
What's the context?
The administration says that the countries on the ban are "deficient" when it comes to identification and information practices, and adds that in some cases, the countries have "a significant terrorist presence" as well.
Mr Trump's ban has seen several iterations. Iraq and Chad were banned in previous versions, but have since been removed.Mr Trump's ban has seen several iterations. Iraq and Chad were banned in previous versions, but have since been removed.
The administration says that the countries on the ban "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". Iraq was removed for having "a close co-operative relationship with the US" and Chad for having "sufficiently improved its practices".
The state of Hawaii had challenged the ban and a federal judge blocked its implementation.The state of Hawaii had challenged the ban and a federal judge blocked its implementation.
For months, the question has been whether Mr Trump's campaign promise for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" was a motive for the ban.
The administration said that the ban was the result of carefully considering national security interests.