To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

×
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Allowing Muslim Ban to Go into Effect, US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump

A woman wearing a hijab stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court, October 11, 2017 in Washington, DC. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries by lifting injunctions imposed by lower courts. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Allowing Muslim Ban to Go into Effect, US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump

In a 7-2 decision, justices lift lower-court rulings that had imposed injunction against discriminatory travel and immigration policy

This a breaking news development and will be updated...

"Shameful... Another stain added to our nation's history." --Faiza N. Ali, social justice activist

In 7-2 ruling handed down Monday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow full enforcement of a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries by lifting injunctions imposed by lower courts.

As the Associated Pressreports, "The ban applies to travelers 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."

As the ALCU notes, the ruling does not mean the court has sided with the Trump administration on the merits of the "Muslim Ban" itself--a policy that sparked fierce protests when it was first announced earlier this year and which civil liberties advocates have widely condemned--but instead stayed orders from lower courts which said that enforcement of the ban should be on hold while the various challenges to the policy made their way through the system.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting voices on the bench.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, had this reaction:

"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret -- he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down."

Others critics of the ban were swift in expressing their disappointment, but also explained that the order does not contain anything about the court's overall assessment of the case:

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
aclumuslim banreligionruth bader ginsburgus supreme court

This a breaking news development and will be updated...

"Shameful... Another stain added to our nation's history." --Faiza N. Ali, social justice activist

In 7-2 ruling handed down Monday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow full enforcement of a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries by lifting injunctions imposed by lower courts.

As the Associated Pressreports, "The ban applies to travelers 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."

As the ALCU notes, the ruling does not mean the court has sided with the Trump administration on the merits of the "Muslim Ban" itself--a policy that sparked fierce protests when it was first announced earlier this year and which civil liberties advocates have widely condemned--but instead stayed orders from lower courts which said that enforcement of the ban should be on hold while the various challenges to the policy made their way through the system.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting voices on the bench.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, had this reaction:

"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret -- he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down."

Others critics of the ban were swift in expressing their disappointment, but also explained that the order does not contain anything about the court's overall assessment of the case:

This a breaking news development and will be updated...

"Shameful... Another stain added to our nation's history." --Faiza N. Ali, social justice activist

In 7-2 ruling handed down Monday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow full enforcement of a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries by lifting injunctions imposed by lower courts.

As the Associated Pressreports, "The ban applies to travelers 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."

As the ALCU notes, the ruling does not mean the court has sided with the Trump administration on the merits of the "Muslim Ban" itself--a policy that sparked fierce protests when it was first announced earlier this year and which civil liberties advocates have widely condemned--but instead stayed orders from lower courts which said that enforcement of the ban should be on hold while the various challenges to the policy made their way through the system.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting voices on the bench.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, had this reaction:

"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret -- he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down."

Others critics of the ban were swift in expressing their disappointment, but also explained that the order does not contain anything about the court's overall assessment of the case:

aclumuslim banreligionruth bader ginsburgus supreme court
Join the Conversation