On Thursday President Donald Trump’s administration defended the temporary travel ban with the US Supreme Court, emphasizing on the executive’s power to remove foreigners from the United States.
The Justice department mentioned that Trump’s vow to ban Muslims during the last year’s presidential campaign is legally if not rhetorically irrelevant. An 84-page brief served as the opening salvo in a Supreme Court case scheduled for oral arguments for two months from Thursday onwards.
The revised order was blocked by two federal appeals court from taking effect until the US Supreme Court ruled in June that it would be proceeded on a limited basis.
On October 10, the nation’s highest court will hear the oral arguments about the lawfulness of the ban along with a brief on the legal position the government intends to implement.
The state of Hawaii and refugee organizations challenged the executive order claim citing that it was discriminatory against Muslims.
The government hammered against the broad ruling by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked the ban. It supported that the campaign statement made by the president when he was a private citizen should not be considered.
Trump supported the order was important to review vetting procedures to save the country from terrorist attacks.
The probe on the president’s motives in decision about the national security will lead to inappropriate ‘judicial psychoanalysis’.
As stated by the government the Congress had given the president the authority to limit refugee admissions and bar the entry of any foreigner or group of foreigners it would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.
Parts of the revised March executive order will be effective from June 29 the Supreme Court ruled. Visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen related to a U.S. citizen or entity will be allowed an entry.
But there will be a round of legal sparring since the government intends to exclude grandparents and other family members as who would be allowed in.
The Supreme Court further added that though the litigation will continue over the enforcement of ban in lower courts grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law of people from the six countries would be allowed.
However, refugees with relationships with U.S. resettlement agencies would not be permitted.
Attorney Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii in its challenge to the ban, stated in an email that he was looking forward to the Supreme Court hearing the case in October.
The acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued over the order’s text and operation and mentioned it to entirely religion neutral.
