Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban for Muslim Countries

The Supreme Court is upholding President Donald Trump’s travel ban which covers people from several Muslim-majority countries.

Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision in a 5-4 conservative majority ruling.

At a White House meeting to discuss President Trump’s proposed border wall he lauded the decision as “a tremendous success”.

The Supreme Court’s reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration.

The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States.

President Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision saying that it was a “great victory” for the nation and constitution.

At a meeting with lawmakers, the president said: “We have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure.”

“The ruling shows that all the attacks from the media and the Democrat politicians were wrong, and they turned out to be very wrong,” he added.

President Trump said: “If you look at the European Union, they’re meeting right now to toughen up their immigration policies because they’ve been over-run, they’ve been over-run.

“And frankly, a lot of those countries are not the same places anymore.”

Supreme Court Approves Donald Trump’s Full Travel Ban

US Travel Ban: White House Sets New Criteria for Visa Applicants from Six Muslim Countries

The travel ban, which the Supreme Court allowed to take effect in December 2017, has been widely criticized 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”.

He also rejected arguments that the ban discriminated against Muslims.

He wrote: “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.

“The text says nothing about religion.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the dissenting opinion, which argues the court failed to uphold the religious liberty guaranteed by the first amendment of the US constitution.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote: “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 reasonable observer would conclude that [the ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus”.

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.

However, the restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela were not part of the legal challenge.