Trump travel ban on more solid ground as top court cancels hearingNEW YORK (Reuters) - The Supreme Court signaled on Monday it may dismiss a challenge to President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban after the White House announced tailored restrictions on eight countries that legal experts said stand a better chance at holding up in court.  The high court canceled oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 10 to decide whether or not a March 6 executive order that temporarily blocked travel from six Muslim-majority countries was discriminatory. That ban expired on Sunday. The president replaced it with a proclamation that indefinitely restricts travel from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea. Certain government officials from Venezuela will also be barred. The new ban, Trump’s third, could affect tens of thousands of potential immigrants and visitors.  Trump has been trying for most of the year to create a ban that passes court muster. The Sunday proclamation, which he said is needed to screen out terrorist or public safety threats, could be less vulnerable to legal attack, scholars and other experts said, because it is the result of a months-long analysis of foreign vetting procedures by U.S. officials.  It also might be less easily tied to Trump’s campaign-trail statements some courts viewed as biased against Muslims.  “The greater the sense that the policy reflects a considered, expert judgment, the less the temptation (by courts) to second-guess the executive,” said Saikrishna Prakash, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, in an email. “It looks less like a matter of prejudice or a desire to fulfill a campaign promise.” In its brief order, the high court asked the Trump administration and the ban’s challengers, including states and refugee advocacy organizations, to file briefs on whether the case should be dismissed. Trump’s March 6 ban sparked international outrage and was quickly blocked by federal courts as unconstitutional discrimination or a violation of immigration law.  In June, the Supreme Court allowed a limited version of the ban to go ahead while the justices prepared to hear arguments over its legality on Oct. 10, a date they have now scrubbed. In 2016, more than 72,000 nonimmigrant and immigrant visas were issued to the countries covered by the new ban, excluding Venezuela, with nearly half of those going to Iran. Only nine North Koreans immigrated to the United States in 2016 and 100 were granted nonimmigrant visas. The new ban is set to go into effect on Oct. 18, but it already applies to five of the six countries covered by the March 6 ban, according to a U.S. State Department cable issued on Sunday and obtained by Reuters. (To read the full cable click here: here)  Sudan was dropped from the list of banned countries after the Sudanese government provided information required under the new criteria set out by the Trump administration earlier this year, a White House official said on Monday. The government has said the president has broad authority in immigration and national security matters, but challengers to the March ban had argued that it ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s bar on favoring one religion over another.  They cited statements Trump made during his 2016 campaign for president, including his call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Within hours of Sunday’s proclamation, representatives for the Hawaii, New York and California attorneys general said their offices were reviewing the new restrictions. Advocacy organizations denounced it as more of the same. If the court does dismiss the case, there remains the separate issue of whether the justices will throw out the sweeping lower court rulings that invalidated the ban. The government would want to erase precedents that constrain its authority while the challengers would want to keep them in place for the same reasons.  “This is still a Muslim ban. They simply added three additional countries,” said Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, which previously sued to block Trump’s travel ban executive orders.  “Of those countries, Chad is majority Muslim, travel from North Korea is already basically frozen and the restrictions on Venezuela only affect government officials on certain visas,” Heller said.  Sudan, which was in the March order, is no longer included.  The worldwide review examined each country’s ability to issue reliable electronic passports and share security risk data with the United States. Overall, 47 countries had problems, and 40 made improvements, including 11 that agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists, Trump’s proclamation said.  The review “at least arguably attenuates the link between the president’s alleged bias and the policy,” said Margo Schlanger, a University of Michigan Law School professor. However, challengers potentially could argue that the expanded ban violates the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which forbids the government from discriminating based on an individual’s nationality when issuing immigrant visas. “Congress decided that it didn’t want an immigration system that played favorites among countries,” Schlanger said. politicsNews
trump travel ban solid ground top court cancels hearingnew york reuters the supreme court signaled monday may dismiss challenge president donald trump controversial travel ban white house announced tailored restrictions eight countries legal experts said stand better chance holding court the high court canceled oral arguments scheduled decide whether march executive order temporarily blocked travel six countries discriminatory that ban expired sunday the president replaced proclamation indefinitely restricts travel iran libya syria yemen somalia chad north korea certain government officials venezuela also barred the new ban trump third could affect tens thousands potential immigrants visitors trump trying year create ban passes court muster the sunday proclamation said needed screen terrorist public safety threats could less vulnerable legal attack scholars experts said result analysis foreign vetting procedures officials it also might less easily tied trump statements courts viewed biased muslims the greater sense policy reflects considered expert judgment less temptation courts executive said saikrishna prakash professor university virginia school law email it looks less like matter prejudice desire fulfill campaign in brief order high court asked trump administration ban challengers including states refugee advocacy organizations file briefs whether case dismissed trump march ban sparked international outrage quickly blocked federal courts unconstitutional discrimination violation immigration law in june supreme court allowed limited version ban go ahead justices prepared hear arguments legality date rubbed in nonimmigrant immigrant visas issued countries covered new ban excluding venezuela nearly half going iran only nine north korean immigrated united states granted nonimmigrant visas the new ban set go effect already applies five six countries covered march ban according state department cable issued sunday obtained reuters to read full cable click sudan dropped list banned countries sudanese government provided information required new criteria set trump administration earlier year white house official said monday the government said president broad authority immigration national security matters challengers march ban argued ran afoul constitution bar favoring one religion another they cited statements trump made campaign president including call total complete shutdown muslims entering united within hours sunday proclamation representatives hawaii new york california attorneys general said offices reviewing new restrictions advocacy organizations denounced if court dismiss case remains separate issue whether justices throw sweeping lower court rulings invalidated ban the government would want erase precedents constraint authority challengers would want keep place reasons this still muslim ban they simply added three additional countries said mecca helper director international refugee assistance project previously sued block trump travel ban executive orders of countries chad majority muslim travel north korea already basically frozen restrictions venezuela affect government officials certain visas helper said sudan march order longer included the worldwide review examined country ability issue reliable electronic passports share security risk data united states overall countries problems made improvements including agreed share information known suspected terrorists trump proclamation said the review least arguably attenuated link president alleged bias policy said cargo changer university michigan law school professor however challengers potentially could argue expanded ban violates federal immigration nationality act forbids government discriminating based individual nationality issuing immigrant visas congress decided want immigration system played favorites among countries changer said politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Trump travel ban on more solid ground as top court cancels hearingNEW YORK (Reuters) - The Supreme Court signaled on Monday it may dismiss a challenge to President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban after the White House announced tailored restrictions on eight countries that legal experts said stand a better chance at holding up in court.  The high court canceled oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 10 to decide whether or not a March 6 executive order that temporarily blocked travel from six Muslim-majority countries was discriminatory. That ban expired on Sunday. The president replaced it with a proclamation that indefinitely restricts travel from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea. Certain government officials from Venezuela will also be barred. The new ban, Trump’s third, could affect tens of thousands of potential immigrants and visitors.  Trump has been trying for most of the year to create a ban that passes court muster. The Sunday proclamation, which he said is needed to screen out terrorist or public safety threats, could be less vulnerable to legal attack, scholars and other experts said, because it is the result of a months-long analysis of foreign vetting procedures by U.S. officials.  It also might be less easily tied to Trump’s campaign-trail statements some courts viewed as biased against Muslims.  “The greater the sense that the policy reflects a considered, expert judgment, the less the temptation (by courts) to second-guess the executive,” said Saikrishna Prakash, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, in an email. “It looks less like a matter of prejudice or a desire to fulfill a campaign promise.” In its brief order, the high court asked the Trump administration and the ban’s challengers, including states and refugee advocacy organizations, to file briefs on whether the case should be dismissed. Trump’s March 6 ban sparked international outrage and was quickly blocked by federal courts as unconstitutional discrimination or a violation of immigration law.  In June, the Supreme Court allowed a limited version of the ban to go ahead while the justices prepared to hear arguments over its legality on Oct. 10, a date they have now scrubbed. In 2016, more than 72,000 nonimmigrant and immigrant visas were issued to the countries covered by the new ban, excluding Venezuela, with nearly half of those going to Iran. Only nine North Koreans immigrated to the United States in 2016 and 100 were granted nonimmigrant visas. The new ban is set to go into effect on Oct. 18, but it already applies to five of the six countries covered by the March 6 ban, according to a U.S. State Department cable issued on Sunday and obtained by Reuters. (To read the full cable click here: here)  Sudan was dropped from the list of banned countries after the Sudanese government provided information required under the new criteria set out by the Trump administration earlier this year, a White House official said on Monday. The government has said the president has broad authority in immigration and national security matters, but challengers to the March ban had argued that it ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s bar on favoring one religion over another.  They cited statements Trump made during his 2016 campaign for president, including his call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Within hours of Sunday’s proclamation, representatives for the Hawaii, New York and California attorneys general said their offices were reviewing the new restrictions. Advocacy organizations denounced it as more of the same. If the court does dismiss the case, there remains the separate issue of whether the justices will throw out the sweeping lower court rulings that invalidated the ban. The government would want to erase precedents that constrain its authority while the challengers would want to keep them in place for the same reasons.  “This is still a Muslim ban. They simply added three additional countries,” said Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, which previously sued to block Trump’s travel ban executive orders.  “Of those countries, Chad is majority Muslim, travel from North Korea is already basically frozen and the restrictions on Venezuela only affect government officials on certain visas,” Heller said.  Sudan, which was in the March order, is no longer included.  The worldwide review examined each country’s ability to issue reliable electronic passports and share security risk data with the United States. Overall, 47 countries had problems, and 40 made improvements, including 11 that agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists, Trump’s proclamation said.  The review “at least arguably attenuates the link between the president’s alleged bias and the policy,” said Margo Schlanger, a University of Michigan Law School professor. However, challengers potentially could argue that the expanded ban violates the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which forbids the government from discriminating based on an individual’s nationality when issuing immigrant visas. “Congress decided that it didn’t want an immigration system that played favorites among countries,” Schlanger said. politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: trump travel ban solid ground top court cancels hearingnew york reuters the supreme court signaled monday may dismiss challenge president donald trump controversial travel ban white house announced tailored restrictions eight countries legal experts said stand better chance holding court the high court canceled oral arguments scheduled decide whether march executive order temporarily blocked travel six countries discriminatory that ban expired sunday the president replaced proclamation indefinitely restricts travel iran libya syria yemen somalia chad north korea certain government officials venezuela also barred the new ban trump third could affect tens thousands potential immigrants visitors trump trying year create ban passes court muster the sunday proclamation said needed screen terrorist public safety threats could less vulnerable legal attack scholars experts said result analysis foreign vetting procedures officials it also might less easily tied trump statements courts viewed biased muslims the greater sense policy reflects considered expert judgment less temptation courts executive said saikrishna prakash professor university virginia school law email it looks less like matter prejudice desire fulfill campaign in brief order high court asked trump administration ban challengers including states refugee advocacy organizations file briefs whether case dismissed trump march ban sparked international outrage quickly blocked federal courts unconstitutional discrimination violation immigration law in june supreme court allowed limited version ban go ahead justices prepared hear arguments legality date rubbed in nonimmigrant immigrant visas issued countries covered new ban excluding venezuela nearly half going iran only nine north korean immigrated united states granted nonimmigrant visas the new ban set go effect already applies five six countries covered march ban according state department cable issued sunday obtained reuters to read full cable click sudan dropped list banned countries sudanese government provided information required new criteria set trump administration earlier year white house official said monday the government said president broad authority immigration national security matters challengers march ban argued ran afoul constitution bar favoring one religion another they cited statements trump made campaign president including call total complete shutdown muslims entering united within hours sunday proclamation representatives hawaii new york california attorneys general said offices reviewing new restrictions advocacy organizations denounced if court dismiss case remains separate issue whether justices throw sweeping lower court rulings invalidated ban the government would want erase precedents constraint authority challengers would want keep place reasons this still muslim ban they simply added three additional countries said mecca helper director international refugee assistance project previously sued block trump travel ban executive orders of countries chad majority muslim travel north korea already basically frozen restrictions venezuela affect government officials certain visas helper said sudan march order longer included the worldwide review examined country ability issue reliable electronic passports share security risk data united states overall countries problems made improvements including agreed share information known suspected terrorists trump proclamation said the review least arguably attenuated link president alleged bias policy said cargo changer university michigan law school professor however challengers potentially could argue expanded ban violates federal immigration nationality act forbids government discriminating based individual nationality issuing immigrant visas congress decided want immigration system played favorites among countries changer said politicsnews