26 June 2017•Update: 27 June 2017
By Michael Hernandez
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on whether President Donald Trump's ban on immigration from six Muslim-majority countries is constitutional while allowing part of the order to be implemented.
America's highest court said in an unsigned 13-page opinion that it would hear arguments in October.
Trump's March 6 travel ban, a revised version of the one issued in January, has been criticized by many, including several lower courts, as being an unconstitutional attempt to restrict Muslim immigration to the United States.
It suspends new visas being issued to people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for at least 90 days, and suspends the U.S. refugee admittance program.
But in agreeing to hear the case later this year, the Supreme Court is allowing parts of the order to go ahead.
Specifically, the court said the executive order would be enforced on foreign nationals who did not have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or organization.
In effect, that means that individuals from the designated countries who have never been to the U.S. before, or lacked a relationship with an American or American organization could still have their visa denied during the 90-day period.
But what a "bona fide relationship" exactly constitutes is a matter of dispute.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for himself and on behalf of Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas said that they would have implemented the full order before hearing arguments due to the complications that could arise from the ambiguity.
"I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable," Thomas wrote. "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."
He added that the decision would result in a "flood of litigation" until the court issued its ruling.
Shortly after the court issued its opinion the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said on Twitter it would "head back into court to fight the fundamentally unconstitutional Muslim ban this October".
Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project who had argued the case in court, said in a statement the travel ban "violates the fundamental constitutional principle that government cannot favor or disfavor any one religion".
"Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down," he said.
Trump welcomed the Supreme Court's decision, saying in a statement it allowed his travel ban "to become largely effective".
"Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security," he said.
