WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

FILE PHOTO: An international traveler arrives after U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel ban at Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. January 30, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump’s controversial executive order, which banned travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and limited refugee admissions.

The March 6 order suspended travel for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks and allow the government to put in place more stringent vetting procedures.

The order took effect in late June, following a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the scope of lower court rulings.

In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban.

The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.

However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump’s refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.

The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.

Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA’s senior director of campaigns, said the refugee ban is inherently cruel.

“The Supreme Court today has dealt yet another devastating blow to vulnerable people who were on the cusp of obtaining safety for themselves and their families,” she said. “They continue to be subjected to unimaginable violence and fear while their lives are in limbo.”

Earlier on Tuesday the state of Hawaii, which challenged the policy, said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still “bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country.” All the 9th Circuit ruling did is “protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores,” Hawaii’s lawyers added.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said he respected the Supreme Court’s decision and is preparing for the hearing there on Oct. 10.</s>The court issued a one-paragraph statement granting the administration's request for a stay of the latest legal maneuvering involving the president's executive order on immigration. There were no recorded dissents to the decision.

At issue is whether the president can block a group of about 24,000 refugees, who have assurances from sponsors, from entering the United States. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had interpreted a Supreme Court directive this summer to mean that such refugees should be allowed in, but the government objected.

The latest court actions are part of a complicated legal battle that began in January when President Donald Trump issued his first version of an entry ban. The Supreme Court is to consider the merits of his actions at a hearing Oct. 10.

The current case grows out of a Supreme Court decision in June that approved a limited version of a presidential order that temporarily blocked refugees and citizens of six majority-Muslim countries.

The justices said Trump could impose a limited version of the measure, but not on a person with a "bona fide" connection to the United States, such as having family members here, a job offer or a place in a U.S. university.

It is the interpretation of a "bona fide" connection to the United States that is being debated.

The government initially declined to include grandparents and other members of the extended family as meeting that standard, as well as refugees with formal assurances. A federal district judge said the government's reading was too broad and stopped it.

The Supreme Court largely upheld that ruling in July, although it put on hold the portion dealing with refugees.

Last week, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in, deciding that the administration could block neither grandparents nor refugees with assurances.

The Justice Department this week asked the Supreme Court to step in again - although only to block refugees, not grandparents and other relatives beyond the nuclear family. Even those refugees with formal assurances from a resettlement agency lack the sort of connection that should exempt them from the ban, the Justice Department argued in its new filing to the Supreme Court.

"The absence of a formal connection between a resettlement agency and a refugee subject to an assurance stands in stark contrast to the sort of relationships this court identified as sufficient in its June 26 stay ruling," Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in his filing.

"Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any free-standing connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies' assurance agreement with the government," the filing said.

In response, the state of Hawaii, which is challenging the travel ban, told the Supreme Court that the government's argument made no sense.

"Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the government has pointed to in the past," wrote Washington lawyer Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii.

"By the government's own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they represent a security threat."

Time is beginning to become a factor in the broader fight over Trump's travel ban. The measure was supposed to have been temporary - lasting 90 days for citizens of the six affected countries, and 120 days for refugees. If the measure is considered to have taken effect when the Supreme Court allowed partial implementation, the 90 days will have passed by the time the justices hear arguments Oct. 10, and the 120 days are very likely to have passed by the time they issue a decision.

Some deadlines for reports have also seemingly passed. The Department of Homeland Security secretary was - within 20 days of the order taking effect - to have given Trump the results of a worldwide review determining what information was necessary from other countries to vet travelers. The countries that were not supplying adequate information were then to be given 50 days to begin doing so, and after that, top U.S. officials were to give Trump a list of countries whose citizens would be recommended for inclusion in a more permanent travel ban.

A Homeland Security spokesman said that a report was delivered to the White House in early July on the results of the review and that officials then went about assessing each country on the information it provided

He said Homeland Security officials were "evaluating the information received and will provide a report to the president in the coming weeks."</s>Earlier this week, the Supreme Court temporarily restored Donald Trump’s most recent travel ban. The controversial policy has seen multiple incarnations with the first version banning refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. Since then, Trump’s “watered down” version only bans refugees from six of those countries (Iraq was removed from the list). And on Tuesday, SCOTUS went ahead and approved the Trump administration’s request to block most refugees from entering the country.

This move will overturn a federal appeals court ruling and potentially impact 24,000 refugees who had already been declared exempt after executing contracts with resettlement organizations. It’s yet another victory for the Trump administration in its quest to fight multiple federal court rulings that declared the travel ban to be unconstitutional.

It is, however, notable that the Trump administration has declined to challenge a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocked Trump’s ban from barring grandparents, cousins, and other close relatives from the country. USA Today summarized that decision when it happened:

In a unanimous ruling, three 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges in Seattle rejected the administration’s interpretation of who should be allowed entry into the United States, saying “the government does not offer a persuasive explanation for why a mother-in-law is clearly a bona fide relationship, in the Supreme Court’s prior reasoning, but a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or cousin is not.”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the rest of Trump’s travel ban — including its constitutionality as a whole — on October 10.</s>WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees.

The justices on Tuesday agreed to an administration request to block a lower court ruling that would have eased the refugee ban and allowed up to 24,000 refugees to enter the country before the end of October.

The order was not the court's last word on the travel policy that President Trump first rolled out in January. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on Oct. 10 on the legality of the bans on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries and refugees anywhere in the world.

It's unclear, though, what will be left for the court to decide. The 90-day travel ban lapses in late September and the 120-day refugee ban will expire a month later.

The administration has yet to say whether it will seek to renew the bans, make them permanent or expand the travel ban to other countries.

Lower courts have ruled that the bans violate the Constitution and federal immigration law. The high court has agreed to review those rulings. Its intervention so far has been to evaluate what parts of the policy can take effect in the meantime.

The justices said in June that the administration could not enforce the bans against people who have a "bona fide" relationship with people or entities in the United States. The justices declined to define the required relationships more precisely.

A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge's order that would have allowed refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the U.S. had agreed to take them in.

The administration objected, saying the relationship between refugees and resettlement agencies shouldn't count. The high court's unsigned, one-sentence order agreed with the administration, at least for now.

The appeals court also upheld another part of the judge's ruling that applies to the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Grandparents and cousins of people already in the U.S. can't be excluded from the country under the travel ban, as the Trump administration had wanted. The administration did not ask the Supreme Court to block that part of the ruling.</s>× Supreme Court: Trump administration can keep travel ban on most refugees

The Supreme Court granted Tuesday a Trump administration request to continue to bar most refugees under its travel ban.

Without comment, the court blocked a federal appeals court ruling from last week that would have exempted refugees who have a contractual commitment from resettlement organizations from the travel ban while the justices consider its legality. The ruling could impact roughly 24,000 people.

The travel ban bars certain people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.

The issue concerning the scope of the travel ban has been ricocheting through the courts since last spring when the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s ban to go into effect except for those with a “bona fide” relationship to the United States.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, although it took five justices to make the decision.

The court is expected to take up the legality of the travel ban October 10.</s>× Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Continue to Ban Most Refugees From Entry to U.S.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a Trump administration request to continue to bar most refugees under its travel ban.

Without comment, the court blocked a federal appeals court ruling from last week that would have exempted refugees who have a contractual commitment from resettlement organizations from the travel ban while the justices consider its legality. The ruling could impact roughly 24,000 people.

The travel ban bars certain people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.

The issue concerning the scope of the travel ban has been ricocheting through the courts since last spring when the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s ban to go into effect except for those with a “bona fide” relationship to the United States. The order might give hope to supporters of the ban, but it may also simply reflect a desire on the part of the justices to maintain the status quo until the justices can hear the case next month.

“Although it may be tempting to see the order as a harbinger of how the court is likely to rule on the merits, it’s better understood as a very modest procedural step to stabilize the full scope of the injunctions against the travel ban over the next four weeks,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, although it took five justices to make the decision.

The court is expected to take up the legality of the travel ban October 10.

This story is breaking and will be updated.</s>The Trump administration has had its restrictive policy on refugees upheld by the Supreme Court.

A ruling to ease the policy, which would have allowed up to 24,000 refugees to enter the US before the end of October, was blocked by the justices.

People from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are banned from entering the US due to the ban.

The court will hear further arguments on the policy first rolled out by President Donald Trump in January 2017 next month. The justices will listen to the two sides to decipher the legality of the bans on travellers from six mainly Muslim countries.</s>WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed with the Trump administration Tuesday and put on hold a lower-court decision that would have allowed more refugees to enter the country. The court issued a one-paragraph statement granting the administration's request for a stay of the latest legal maneuvering involving the president's executive order on immigration. There were no ...</s>The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump's controversial executive order.

Trump signed an order on March 6 that banned travellers from six Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The policy suspended travel to the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, and locked out most refugees.

U.S. courts have since limited the scope of that order. In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban.

The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.

However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump's refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.

The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.

A representative for the Hawaii attorney general, who challenged the administration in court, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Earlier on Tuesday, Hawaii said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still "bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country." All the 9th Circuit ruling did is "protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores," the state's lawyers added.</s>Washington: The US Supreme Court has temporarily blocked an Appeals Court ruling that put limits on US President Donald Trump's so-called 'refugee ban'.

The Justice Department on Monday had asked the Supreme Court to intervene so that officials could broadly enforce Mr Trump's travel ban and block even refugees with formal assurances from a resettlement agency from entering the United States.

The filing by Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall demonstrated the lengths the government was willing to go to impose its desired version of the ban.

At issue was whether the President could block a group of about 24,000 refugees with assurances from entering the United States after the Supreme Court decided in June to permit a limited version of his travel ban to take effect. The nation's top justices are scheduled to hear arguments next month on whether the ban is ultimately legal.

Since Mr Trump inked his first travel ban shortly after taking office, the directive has been mired in a complicated legal battle.

The President ultimately revoked the first ban – which blocked refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States – and replaced it with a less onerous version that blocked refugees and citizens of just six of the seven countries.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided Trump could impose that measure, but not on those with a "bona fide" connection to the United States, such as having family members here, or a job or a place in an American university.

It is how to interpret those that have a "bona fide" connection to the United States that is now being debated. The government initially sought to block grandparents and other extended relatives of people in the United States from entering – as well as refugees with formal assurances – though a federal district judge stopped from doing so. The Supreme Court in July largely upheld that ruling, though it put on hold the portion dealing with refugees.

Last week, a federal appeals court panel weighed in, deciding the administration could block neither grandparents nor refugees with assurances.

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to step in again – though only to block refugees, not grandparents and other extended relatives. Even those refugees with formal assurances from a resettlement agency lack the sort of connection that should exempt them from the ban, the Justice Department argued in a filing to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Trump administration can block international refugees from entering the United States.