Supreme Court should overturn travel ban as religious discrimination | CLINIC

Supreme Court should overturn travel ban as religious discrimination

Jun 26, 2017

SILVER SPRING, Maryland – The Supreme Court announced today that this fall it will hear Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii, two cases that challenge the Trump administration’s Executive Order No. 13780, known as the travel ban.
 
For a brief summary of CLINIC’s analysis of the announcement, click here. The administration’s travel ban has been blocked by two federal circuit courts.
 
“The facts of the cases remain unchanged,” said CLINIC Executive Director Jeanne Atkinson. “This is religious discrimination and it will not stand constitutional review. We eagerly anticipate the Supreme Court weighing in to strike down this order.”
 
“Time and again religious tests have been struck down by the court,” she added. “Refugees and others who have justifiable and innocent reasons to come to the United States still will be prevented from travel here by the parts of the ban that the court allowed to proceed. The Supreme Court needs to act quickly to ensure that our immigration and refugee polies are consistent with our core value of religious freedom.”
 
The court allowed certain parts of the travel ban to go into effect pending the outcome of the legal challenge. It left in place lower court injunctions that block its application to people from the countries of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria who “have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” But it allowed the ban on entry to the U. S. to apply to refugees and foreign nationals from the six majority Muslim countries who lack those connections. The court left it up to the federal government to determine what “bona fide relationship” means.
 
CLINIC Advocacy Director Jill Marie Bussey said: “We hope the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department will move forward in good faith with this decision. The chaos that ensued following the first ban undermined confidence in the administration’s ability to implement its policies responsibly. Despite this setback, CLINIC will continue to advocate for transparent and consistent implementation from the agencies responsible, including no religious animus.”
 
Following the decision, DHS issued a statement saying it would release additional details regarding implementation after consulting with officials at the Department of Justice and State Department.
 
CLINIC will follow up with these agencies and share more details as they are released.
 
CLINIC’s full analysis of the today’s decision and other recent Supreme Court cases affecting immigrants are forthcoming.