Cuộc chiến pháp lý Travel Ban 16 tháng: Tòa Tối Cao binh vực Trump
Viết bởi kh   
Thứ ba, 26 Tháng 6 2018 15:10

 

KH: Hôm thứ Ba 26 tháng 6 Tòa Tối Cao ra phán quyết với số phiếu 5-4 đồng ý duy trì lệnh cấm công dân năm nước Hồi Giáo nhập cảnh vào Mỹ của ông Trump (*). Trong thông cáo gởi ra ông Trump nói đây là một chiến thắng to lớn cho người dân và cho Hiến pháp Hoa Kỳ.

 

Cuộc chiến pháp lý kéo dài 16 tháng, qua nhiều trận chiến khác nhau ở các tòa liên bang. Đơn kiện nói lệnh cấm nhập cảnh này của ông Trump là kỳ thị tôn giáo Hồi Giáo, lần cuối vừa qua được tòa liên bang ở Hawaii xử thắng. Bên ông Trump nói lệnh này là cho an ninh quốc gia, kiện lên Tối Cao Pháp Viện.

 

 

062618_2a

FILE- A mock-up of banned Muslim travelers' passport is placed outside the U.S. Supreme Court, while the court justices consider case regarding presidential powers as it weighs the legality of President Donald Trump's latest travel ban

 

_____________________

 

(*):

US Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday narrowly upheld the Trump administration's travel restrictions on citizens of five majority-Muslim countries, handing President Donald Trump a victory in enforcing one of his most controversial policies.

 

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the president has the Constitutional authority under U.S. immigration laws to limit travel from foreign countries on over national security concerns, as the Trump administration has repeatedly argued.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, writing that Trump's executive order restricting travel is "squarely within the scope of presidential authority."

 

The president has "undoubtedly fulfilled" the requirement under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that the entry of the targeted aliens "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States," Roberts wrote.

 

Roberts wrote that the plaintiffs in the case — the state of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, and three residents of the state — failed to demonstrate that the travel order "violates" the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars favoring one religion over another.

 

The decision was widely expected. On immigration and national security matters, the court has historically deferred to the executive branch of government. During oral arguments in the case in April, most justices appeared to embrace that tradition.


The court's four liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision "all the more troubling given the stark parallels between the reasoning of this case and that of Korematsu v. United States," the infamous 1944 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the U.S. government's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Under the so-called "travel ban," issued in September after two earlier orders were blocked by courts, citizens of five Muslim countries Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen as well as North Koreans and some individuals linked to the Venezuelan government — are barred from traveling to the United States. (The central African nation of Chad was initially included in the list but was later dropped).

 

 

062618_2

 

 

The decision caps off 16 months of fraught court battles between an administration determined to defend the president's travel order on national security grounds and opponents who decried it as an ideologically-driven ban on foreign Muslims.

 

In a statement, Trump called the ruling "a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution."

"The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States," Trump said. "In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country."


Civil rights groups and immigrant advocates denounced the ruling but vowed to fight on.

Muslim Advocates, a Washington-based civil rights organization, said the court has affirmed "Trump's bigoted Muslim ban" and "given a green light to religious discrimination and animus."

"This is not the first time the Court has been wrong,or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it," the American Civil Liberties Union tweeted.

Originally issued in January 2017, the travel order underwent two subsequent iterations in the face of legal challenges before its final version found its way in the high court last fall.

The first travel order, announced just seven days after Trump took office, imposed a 90-day ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and a 120-day suspension on refugee admissions but it was blocked by courts.

The second ban, signed on March 6, 2017, dropped Iraq from the list of targeted countries but it too was challenged in court, prompting the administration to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court last June.

 

The justices agreed to hear arguments in the case in October, while allowing a partial implementation of the order.


But the administration preempted the hearing, rolling out yet another travel order in September, this time dropping Sudan and adding Chad, North Korea and Venezuela, making it more difficult to challenge the order as a religiously-motivated ban targeting Muslims.

The state of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii and three residents challenged the third ban in court, arguing that it violated the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That led the administration to once again appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

At issue in Trump v. Hawaii was whether the latest travel order exceeds the president's power over immigration enforcement and whether it violates the "establishment clause" by targeting Muslim countries.

Kristie De Peña, a lawyer and director of immigration at libertarian Niskanen Center, said the court's ruling could lead to further travel bans.

"I can say almost without question that this will embolden the administration to ban additional, the same, or new, populations," De Peña said. "It's probably a matter of when now, not if."

 

Victoria Macchi contributed, VOA News

ô
 

footer_banner_5

 kjgkfdjgkdjfg kjgkfdjgkdjfg