President Donald Trump's almost yearlong effort to implement a ban on travel to the United States from countries deemed to pose a national security threat earned a victory at the Supreme Court Monday, where it was ruled the order could go into full effect as it continues to face legal challenges.
Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, appointed respectively by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, dissented to Monday's ruling. They say that was reinforced most recently by Trump's retweets of anti-Muslim videos.
Five of the court's seven justices granted a request from the President's administration to lift injunctions that had partially blocked the ban on travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hold a hearing in Seattle, Washington on December 6, and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has its hearing on December 8 to determine the legality of the travel ban.
For example, a New York Times piece described this new method of deciding cases as "a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump". The language of the order was adopted from a Supreme Court order pertaining to an earlier version of the ban.
Both cases are scheduled to be heard before the appeals courts this week. He has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement following the the decision.
In lawsuits filed in Hawaii and Maryland, federal courts said the updated travel ban violated federal immigration law.
The ban also covers people from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela. "We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down".
"The human impact is so real and it's severe", Tumlin said.