title: U.S. Supreme Court revival on Trump travel ban draws praise, criticism
text: (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave President Donald Trump a victory by allowing his temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States while agreeing to decide the order’s legality this fall. The case is a major test of presidential powers. The justices granted parts of the Trump administration’s emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues. The court, which narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had blocked his March 6 executive order, said it would hear arguments in October on the lawfulness of the ban. THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, A MUSLIM CIVIL RIGHTS AND ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION The council expressed its concerns about the Supreme Court decision in relations to Islam saying it “ignores the Islamophobic origins of the policy and emboldens Islamophobes in the Trump administration.” AHMED AL-NASI, OFFICIAL AT YEMEN MINISTRY OF EXPATRIATE AFFAIRS Al-Nasi, whose country is one of the six falling under the ban, also criticized the Supreme Court decision.  “We believe it will not help in confronting terrorism and extremism, but rather will increase the feeling among the nationals of these countries that they are all being targeted,” he said. “Especially given that Yemen is an active partner of the United States in the war on terrorism and that there are joint operations against terrorist elements in Yemen.” Shaheen expressed disappointment in the court’s decision. “Muslim travel ban has no merit & offensive to our nation’s core values,” she said on Twitter.  TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT OF JUDICIAL WATCH, A CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATION  Fitton praised the Supreme Court’s decision. “This is a major blow to anti-Trump activist judges on the lower courts. And it is a big victory for our nation’s security, President Trump, and the rule of the law.” he said in a statement.  DAVID MILIBAND, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE HUMANITARIAN AGENCY AND A FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN MINISTER Miliband said the ruling could hurt refugees who have already been vetted and were slated to come to the United States.      “The court’s decision threatens damage to vulnerable people waiting to come to the U.S.: people with urgent medical conditions blocked, innocent people left adrift, all of whom have been extensively vetted,” he said in a statement. “We urge the administration to begin its long-delayed review of the vetting process and restart a program which changes lives for the better.” MICHAEL O’ROURKE, CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST AT JONESTRADING IN GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT O’Rourke said it was not clear if the news on the travel ban was having an impact on stocks.  “I think it’s having a little impact, but I’m not sure. It just seemed to be the timing of the headlines.  “There are a couple of different things floating around. ... I feel there’s a combination of a bunch of little things.   “And I have a thematic track basket for immigration, and there are a bunch of tech names in there. Maybe people are reading into the immigration story there. ... But we know what policy the president is going to pursue. It’s not lining up perfectly for me.” ERIC SCHWARTZ, PRESIDENT OF REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL AND FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION Schwartz said he was disappointed by the court’s decision. “The suspension of refugee resettlement will impact the most vulnerable of the world’s populations, including refugee women and girls, survivors of violence and torture, and refugee children, among many other groups at considerable risk.” he said. “The options for organizations like ours are now limited as the Supreme Court reviews this case.” BECCA HELLER, DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT Heller said the parts of the travel ban allowed to go into effect “are actually incredibly narrow.” “Almost anyone coming into the U.S. who has a visa or has been in the refugee program for a while ... has some kind of tie to a U.S. person or a U.S. entity,” she said. “The hope is that this really only impacts a very small number of people.” Trump praised the court’s decision in a statement released by the White House. “Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,” he said. “Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our nation’s homeland.” DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ED MARKEY OF MASSACHUSETTS, MEMBER OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE Markey said in an interview with CNN that the top court made it clear the Trump administration had overreached when it came to businesses, family members and students but expressed concern that the court did not issue a more fundamental ruling.           “I’m disappointed that the court just didn’t rule that a Muslim ban in and of itself is unconstitutional,” Markey said. OMAR JADWAT, DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION’S IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT Jadwat, who argued the appellate case on the executive order, said in a statement: “President Trump’s Muslim ban violates the fundamental constitutional principle that government cannot favor or disfavor any one religion. Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down.” WILLIAM STOCK, OUTGOING PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION  Stock said the “bona fide connections” to the United States cited by the court as a requirement for admission to the country might include those on employer-sponsored visas, family-sponsored green card applications, people who are admitted by schools in the United States as students and those collaborating on research with people in the United States.  “The court seems to be saying if a family in Iran had prepaid for Disneyland, they probably have a demonstrable connection to the United States that might allow for issuance of a visitor visa,” Stock said. “If a person says ‘I’ve heard of Disneyland and I’d really like to see it,’ that probably doesn’t get them in.” In a statement, Perez vowed to keep fighting the ban, which he called unconstitutional and an assault on American religious freedom.   “As a nation, our diversity is our greatest strength, and we cannot allow such prejudice to shut the doors of progress. Democrats will continue to fight this hatred every step of the way,” Perez said.   “Great news for our national security, the rule of law and @POTUS,” Strange said on Twitter, referring to Trump. 