{"id":3056,"date":"2018-08-14T07:15:57","date_gmt":"2018-08-14T07:15:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/krilawnew\/?p=2759"},"modified":"2026-04-09T12:41:37","modified_gmt":"2026-04-09T17:41:37","slug":"supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban"},"content":{"rendered":"

No case before the Supreme Court this term drew more attention than Trump v. Hawaii, the legal challenge to President Trump\u2019s third travel ban. On June 26, 2018, the Justices finally released their decision<\/a>, upholding the President\u2019s ban. In a majority decision written by the Chief Justice, the Court found that President Trump\u2019s power of immigration was expansive and that his latest travel ban fits comfortably within that power. Turning back both statutory and constitutional challenges<\/a>, the Court nevertheless expressed some skepticism about Trump\u2019s negative statements toward Muslims.<\/p>\n

The Third Travel Ban<\/h2>\n

Relying on 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), President Trump on September 24, 2017, placed restrictions on the entry of citizens from eight countries, most of which were majority-Muslim. This third travel ban followed on the heels of two other bans, which courts had struck down and which either Trump withdrew or which expired. The third ban included countries such as North Korea, Chad, Libya, Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.<\/p>\n

Immediately challenged in court, the ban suffered the same fate as Trump\u2019s earlier two bans, with courts finding it beyond his power or else an exercise of religious discrimination. The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S.<\/a> Supreme Court, which heard his argument on April 25, 2018.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Upholds<\/h2>\n

Relying heavily on statutory text, the Supreme Court found that Congress had given the President the power to exclude \u201cany class of aliens\u201d from the United States provided that the President found their admission would be \u201cdetrimental\u201d to the country\u2019s interests. The Court\u2019s majority waived aside arguments that Congress only intended to grant the President the power to act in emergencies and for a limited amount of time.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Court found that the ban had a rational basis to advance the nation\u2019s security, so it survived any First Amendment challenges. Because the ban dealt with immigration, the majority held that they would not engage in the searching standard of review normally used in First Amendment cases. As a result, the Court held that the ban was a proper exercise of the President\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n

Warning Sounds<\/h2>\n

Although President Trump won this case, many of the Justices went out of their way to chide or warn him that religious and other bigotry will not be tolerated. For example, the majority appeared to overrule its Korematsu decision from World War II, which upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans on national-security grounds. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy stated in his concurrence it was an \u201curgent necessity\u201d that government officials like Trump recognize and respect the freedom of religion.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the strongest rebuke to Trump came from Justice Sotomayor, writing in dissent. Calling President Trump\u2019s anti-Muslim comments \u201charrowing,\u201d she charged the majority with abandoning the nation\u2019s \u201cmost sacred legal commitments\u201d and stated that she would have struck down the travel ban.<\/p>\n

Going Forward<\/h2>\n

With the ban in effect, those hoping to reunite with loved ones<\/a> from affected countries will need to reassess their options. The same goes for corporations, businesses, and universities hoping to sponsor someone from one of the countries on Trump\u2019s list.<\/p>\n

Of course, President Trump could add to the list, revoke the ban, or institute a new one. As with so many things with this Presidency, unpredictability is the only constant.<\/p>\n

For help with your immigration issue, please reach out to Kriezelman Burton & Associates today. Our experienced Chicago immigration lawyers stay abreast of current developments in the law and can identify our clients\u2019 best options in a challenging legal environment. Please contact us today<\/a> to schedule your consultation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

No case before the Supreme Court this term drew more attention than Trump v. Hawaii, the legal challenge to President Trump\u2019s third travel ban. On June 26, 2018, the Justices finally released their decision, upholding the President\u2019s ban. In a majority decision written by the Chief Justice, the Court found that President Trump\u2019s power of … <\/p>\n

Czytaj dalej \u201eSupreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":3063,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_oasis_is_in_workflow":0,"_oasis_original":0,"_oasis_task_priority":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[75,30,34,1],"tags":[49,16,24,18],"class_list":["post-3056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-deportation","category-employment_based_immigration","category-family_based_immigration","category-immigration-law","tag-family-based-immigration","tag-immigration-attorney","tag-immigration-law-firm","tag-immigration-lawyers","entry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3056","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3056"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3056\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11917,"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3056\/revisions\/11917"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3063"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/krilaw.com\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}