US SC allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban on 6 Muslim countries

The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

The justices, with two dissenting votes, said that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.

The ban applies to travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have left the lower court orders in place.

The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, will be holding arguments on the legality of the ban this week.

Both courts are dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis, and the Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions "with appropriate dispatch."

Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.
READ MORE

Missing elements in the debate about affirmative action and Asian-Americans

Media reports have stated that the Justice Department under President Donald Trump is planning to investigate a complaint of discrimination against Harvard University brought by a coalition of Asian-American groups.

From our perspective as scholars who study affirmative action, race and diversity in higher education, the complaint reflects a flawed understanding of race-conscious education policies like affirmative action.

How do affirmative action policies work, and whom do they affect?

Fisher case

Let’s first look at the legal wrangling that has been going on for some time on this issue. Since the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, the Supreme Court consistently has affirmed that under certain conditions (e.g., no numerical set-asides or quotas, diversity is a compelling interest) it is constitutional for institutions of higher education to consider a student’s race in admissions processes.

Most recently, in a landmark judgment on June 23, 2016, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of race-conscious affirmative action in university admissions in the Abigail Fisher case.
READ MORE

Trump's 'Muslim ban': Prove 'close' family or business ties to get US visa

The Trump administration has set new criteria for visa applicants from six mainly Muslim nations and all refugees that require a "close" family or business tie to the United States.

The move comes after the Supreme Court partially restored President Donald Trump's executive order that was widely criticised as a ban on Muslims.

The new guidelines sent to US embassies and consulates yesterday say that applicants from the six countries must prove a relationship with a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling in the US.

This is according to a State Department cable obtained by the Associated Press.

Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancees or other extended family members are not considered to be close relationships.

Senior officials from the departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security are finalising criteria that visitors from six mostly Muslim must meet to avoid the Trump administration's revived travel ban.

The White House deliberations come as US embassies and consulates await instructions later yesterday on how to implement this week's Supreme Court order that partially reinstated the ban after it was blocked by lower courts. The new measures are expected to be implemented today.

The justices' opinion exempts applicants from the ban if they can prove a "bona fide relationship" with a US person or entity.

Government lawyers must determine how to define such a relationship. The court offered only broad guidelines suggesting it would include a relative, job offer or invitation to lecture in the US.
READ MORE