The restrictions vary in their details, but for the most part, the citizens of the countries are prohibited from emigrating to the United States and many of them are prohibited from working, studying or vacationing here.
In December, in a sign that the Supreme Court may be more receptive to maintaining the September order, the court allowed it to take effect as the case progressed. The measure effectively repealed a commitment in effect since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here despite restrictions in an earlier version of the ban.
Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the December Judgment.
Hawaii, several people and a Muslim group defied the limits of the most recent travel ban of six predominantly Muslim nations; they did not oppose the parties concerning North Korea and Venezuela. They prevailed before a Federal District Court there and before a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco.
The appellate court ruled that Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority that Congress had granted him on immigration and violated a portion of the immigration laws that prohibit discrimination in the issuance of visas.
In his brief exhorting the Supreme Court to hear the case, Attorney General Noel J. Francisco wrote that the president has great constitutional and statutory authority over immigration. He added that the third order had been the result of "an extensive global review of multiple government agencies."
"The courts below," wrote Francisco, "have nullified the president's judgments on sensitive issues of national security and foreign relations, and severely restricted the ability of this and future presidents to protect the nation."
The appeals court based its decision on immigration statutes, not on the constitutional prohibition of religious discrimination. But both parties urged the Supreme Court to consider the constitutional and constitutional issues if it agreed to hear the case.
The lawyers for the challengers told the judges that Mr. Trump's own statements provided powerful evidence of anti-Muslim animism. The last order, they said, was infected by the same defects as the previous one.
"The president has repeatedly explained that the two orders pursue the same goal," the challengers wrote. Nine days before the September order was published, they wrote, "the president demanded a bigger, harder and more specific ban," reminding the public that he remains committed to a ban on travel "even if it's not politically correct".
The day the September order went public, the challengers added, "the president made it clear that it was the toughest version of the travel ban, telling reporters: & # 39; The travel ban: the harder it is, the better & # 39; ". 19659013] Mr. Francisco said that discrimination had not played any role in the September order. "The process and substance of the proclamation confirm that its purpose was to achieve national security and foreign policy objectives, not to impose anti-Muslim prejudices," Mr. Francisco wrote.
The Supreme Court, again in full force after Mr. Trump's appointment of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to replace Judge Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, already had an unusually large number of important cases in his list, including those of voting rights, union power, digital privacy and a confrontation between the claims of religious freedom and rights of homosexuals.
Continue reading the main story