Massachusetts Leaders Disappointed By Muslim Travel Ban Ruling

American-Muslims have decried a US Supreme Court ruling that upheld a controversial travel ban on five Muslim-majority countries, expressing anger and fear over what it will mean for them and their families.

In the case of Trump v. Hawaii, the Court voted 5-4 to uphold President Trump's executive order.

The Trump administration has granted waivers to less than 2 percent of visa applicants exempting them from President Donald Trump's travel ban on several mostly Muslim countries. He n approved a somewhat decaffeinated executive order but in same line, which was also suspended by judges of lower instances than supreme. Some travelers were detained at airports, while others were allowed to enter the U.S. During election campaign, as a candidate, Trump himself had given arguments to opponents of this veto by claiming that he had to ban country from "Muslims" to reduce risks of Islamist terrorism.

The US Supreme Court on June 26 upheld the president's most recent presidential proclamation (the Proclamation) of September 24, 2017, which impacted entry into the United States by individuals from eight named countries.[1] The Court's 5-4 decision overturns a preliminary injunction previously issued by the US District Court for the District of Hawaii and remands it to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with its holdings. Jadwat likened the Court's decision to the ruling which upheld Japanese-American internment during World War II.

"As here, the exclusion order was rooted in unsafe stereotypes about a particular group's supposed inability to assimilate and desire to harm the United States", Sotomayor wrote.

While the ban has changed shape since then, it has remained a key part of Trump's "America First" vision, with the president contending that the restriction, taken in tandem with his promised wall at the southern border, would make the Unites States safer from potentially hostile foreigners. The Supreme Court allowed the order to go into effect in December, while the legal case was pending.

KING: All right. We've heard a lot about the travel ban decision.

"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who can not be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices", Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

This was partially in response to the dissenting opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which contended the ruling on Trump's travel ban has "stark parallels" with the "reasoning" behind the decision made regarding Korematsu.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday by New York, California and 15 other states also cites Trump's statement referring to Mexicans crossing the border as rapists as evidence that the administration's border separation policy is consistent with what it says is Trump's demonstrated bias against Latin Americans.

In January 2017, the order sparked protests outside airport terminals across the USA, and was quickly subject to legal challenges.

Rights groups immediately criticised the ruling.

Protesters took to the streets from Washington to Los Angeles and NY to bemoan the decision, and oppose the administration's hardline approach on the southern border, where 2 000 children remain separated from their migrant parents. During the April 25 arguments before the justices, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said it was "crystal clear" that the travel restrictions were not a manifestation of Trump's call for a Muslim ban.

"The court ruled in favor of the administration, Chief Justice John Roberts writing ".the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review.

"I am thrilled the courts are starting to back up President Trump", she said. When CNN asked in February 2017 if the executive order is an attempt to ban Muslims from entering the USA, 55% said it was.

  • Rogelio Becker