The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a part of President Trump’s infamous travel ban would be enacted as a means for national security, hindering the entrance of citizens from six Muslim-dominated countries who lack a “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.”
The travel ban, originally proposed in January and revised in March after immense disapproval, is meant to restrict travel from six Muslim-dominant countries, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, for 90 days in order to repair faulty aspects in the U.S. government’s vetting procedures. As of Monday, the Supreme Court deemed this proposal as just, with the implementations of few exceptions.
The justices of the SCOTUS declared that if a foreigner from one of the aforementioned countries had genuine relationships in the United States, they would not be prohibited from entering. However, the ban can be applicable for those who do not have ties in the U.S.
Now the Supreme Court is left with the question: what constitutes as a bona fide relationship? Justice Clarence Thomas expressed concerns, writing, “I fear that the court’s remedy will prove unworkable. Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country.” The lack of strict requirements in a bona fide relationship foreshadows of problems in the future of the travel ban enactment.
While refugees from listed countries seeking sanctuary in the United States are able to legitimately claim “concrete hardship,” the overall lack in any connection to the United States will result in the balance tipping “in favor of the government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.“
