Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban Partially, Trump Calls Decision 'A Clear Victory For National Security'

The Supreme Court on Monday revived parts of President Donald Trump’s travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries. As it lifted significant injunctions placed by the lower courts blocking the controversial executive order, the apex court said it would take up the oral arguments regarding the travel ban in the fall.

In a statement issued soon after the court’s decision, Trump said: “Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

He also added in the statement as the president it was his “number one responsibility” to take care of the American people and keep them safe. “Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0,” Trump’s statement specified.

Trump also posted a tweet referring to the court's decision.

Read: List Of Legal Challenges Trump's Travel Ban Executive Order Has Faced So Far

A limited version of the executive order can be enforced immediately and a full hearing would be heard in the fall, the court made it clear, according to an offical document. “An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the court said.

“As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security,” the document specified.

But Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented from part of the opinion regarding the decision and stated a full-fledged ban should be put into effect despite the fact whether people had a “bona fide relationship” in the U.S., as per the document.

“I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable. Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas said.

The president’s modified version of the travel ban on March 6 stated a 90-day ban would be imposed on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees trying to enter the country. The government would implement stricter vetting procedures, it was said. The Supreme Court allowed parts of this travel ban to be reinstated, which had been halted by lower courts earlier. The lower courts said the ban was discriminatory towards Muslims and violated federal immigration law.

Read: Trump Travel Ban 2.0: Hawaii Judge Refuses To Limit His Order On Revised Travel Ban

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, a Detroit federal judge Monday put a temporary stay on the deportation of numerous Iraqis involved in the recent immigration raids around the country. District Judge Mark Goldsmith requested the lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and other immigrant rights advocates to expand his order nationwide in order to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the deportation of Iraqi nationals. The ACLU rights advocates earlier said the immigrants could face torture, persecution or death in Iraq.

Soon after the Supreme Court’s decision, the ACLU took to Twitter to mark its protest.