Travel Ban 3.0: Critics Suggested It Is A Simpler Way To Conduct A Muslim Ban; Supreme Court Cancels Hearing
On Monday, the Supreme Court abruptly canceled the oral arguments with regards to President Trump's travel ban. Reports stated that it is signaling the beginning of the end for the politically charged case. It could have produced a blockbuster ruling on the clash between the presidential power and claims of the religious discrimination.
The new, broader ban on travel prompted the unusual move by the justices that left President Trump to face investigation on a policy that in some ways goes further. The ban indefinitely restricts most travel in the United States from seven countries and imposing restrictions on the additional two countries.
However, the president's third attempt at controlling the border may finally stand up to the expected wave of new legal challenges. In the new ban, it states that two countries that do not have a Muslim majority may isolate him from charges. Thus, his actions are based on the religious discrimination.
In line, the new ban was created after the active security review that the administration has done. However, there are some legal unassailable rationales for the travel restrictions. The court was set to hear the challenge of President Trump travel ban in two weeks.
As follows, this would allow President Trump to avoid the definitive ruling on whether he had violated the Constitution's protection freedom in religion and tops his lawful authority have a control over the country's borders. This has been argued by the civil rights lawyers. The lower courts also ruled against him, suggesting that the President was pinning his hopes for political vindication on an ideologically divided Supreme Court, according to Reuters.
Furthermore, the critics suggested that the Travel Ban 3.0 is nothing less than a dressed-up Muslim ban. Thus, despite the less chaotic rollout, the questions still remain about how the travel ban takes place. Also, who will be affected and what is the basis in picking a country, according to New York Times.