Trump administration defends travel ban in Supreme Court briefNEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s administration reiterated arguments defending its temporary travel ban in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, repeatedly citing the executive’s broad powers to exclude foreigners from the United States. The travel ban barring refugees and people from six Muslim-majority nations was signed as an executive order in March, after an earlier version had to be scrapped in the face of legal challenges. Two federal appeals courts blocked the revised order from taking effect until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June it could move forward on a limited basis. The nation’s highest court has agreed to hear oral arguments about the lawfulness of the ban on Oct. 10, and the brief laid out the legal position the government plans to make. The state of Hawaii and refugee organizations challenging the executive order claim it is discriminatory against Muslims, citing statements Trump made on the campaign trail calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” However, the government, hammering against a broad ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked the ban, said campaign statements made by the president when he was a private citizen should not be taken into account. The brief said it was a mistake to probe the president’s motives in decisions about national security, which would amount to inappropriate “judicial psychoanalysis” of the president. Trump said the order was necessary to review vetting procedures to help protect the country from terrorist attacks.  The Department of Justice argued the case would “invite impermissible intrusion on privileged internal Executive Branch deliberations” and that the plaintiffs in the case were calling for “up to 30 depositions of White House staff and Cabinet-level officials.” The government repeated its stance that Congress has granted the president wide authority to limit refugee admissions and bar the entry of any foreigner or group of foreigners if it would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  The Supreme Court ruled parts of the revised March executive order could go into effect on June 29, finding that anyone from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with a “bona fide relationship” to a U.S. citizen or entity could not be barred. However, the government excluded grandparents and other family members from the definition of who would be allowed in, leading to another round of legal sparring. Eventually the Supreme Court said that, while litigation continues over enforcement of the ban in lower courts, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law of people from the six countries would be let in but that refugees with relationships with U.S. resettlement agencies would not.  Attorney Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii in its challenge to the ban, said in an email on Thursday: “We look forward to the Supreme Court hearing our case in October.” politicsNews
trump administration defends travel ban supreme court briefed york reuters president donald trump administration reiterated arguments defending temporary travel ban filing supreme court thursday repeatedly citing executive broad powers exclude foreigners united states the travel ban barring refugees people six nations signed executive order march earlier version scrapped face legal challenges two federal appeals courts blocked revised order taking effect supreme court ruled june could move forward limited basis the nation highest court agreed hear oral arguments lawfulness ban brief laid legal position government plans make the state hawaii refugee organizations challenging executive order claim discriminatory muslims citing statements trump made campaign trail calling total complete shutdown muslims entering united however government hamstring broad ruling circuit court appeals blocked ban said campaign statements made president private citizen taken account the brief said mistake probe president motives decisions national security would amount inappropriate judicial psychoanalysis president trump said order necessary review vetting procedures help protect country terrorist attacks the department justice argued case would invite permissible intrusion privileged internal executive branch deliberations plaintiffs case calling deposition white house staff the government repeated stance congress granted president wide authority limit refugee admissions bar entry foreigner group foreigners would detrimental interests united the supreme court ruled parts revised march executive order could go effect june finding anyone iran libya somalia sudan syria yemen bona fide relationship citizen entity could barred however government excluded grandparents family members definition would allowed leading another round legal sparring eventually supreme court said litigation continues enforcement ban lower courts grandparents grandchildren aunts uncles nieces nephews cousins people six countries would let refugees relationships resettlement agencies would attorney neal fatal representing hawaii challenge ban said email thursday we look forward supreme court hearing case 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 administration defends travel ban in Supreme Court briefNEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s administration reiterated arguments defending its temporary travel ban in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, repeatedly citing the executive’s broad powers to exclude foreigners from the United States. The travel ban barring refugees and people from six Muslim-majority nations was signed as an executive order in March, after an earlier version had to be scrapped in the face of legal challenges. Two federal appeals courts blocked the revised order from taking effect until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June it could move forward on a limited basis. The nation’s highest court has agreed to hear oral arguments about the lawfulness of the ban on Oct. 10, and the brief laid out the legal position the government plans to make. The state of Hawaii and refugee organizations challenging the executive order claim it is discriminatory against Muslims, citing statements Trump made on the campaign trail calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” However, the government, hammering against a broad ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked the ban, said campaign statements made by the president when he was a private citizen should not be taken into account. The brief said it was a mistake to probe the president’s motives in decisions about national security, which would amount to inappropriate “judicial psychoanalysis” of the president. Trump said the order was necessary to review vetting procedures to help protect the country from terrorist attacks.  The Department of Justice argued the case would “invite impermissible intrusion on privileged internal Executive Branch deliberations” and that the plaintiffs in the case were calling for “up to 30 depositions of White House staff and Cabinet-level officials.” The government repeated its stance that Congress has granted the president wide authority to limit refugee admissions and bar the entry of any foreigner or group of foreigners if it would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  The Supreme Court ruled parts of the revised March executive order could go into effect on June 29, finding that anyone from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with a “bona fide relationship” to a U.S. citizen or entity could not be barred. However, the government excluded grandparents and other family members from the definition of who would be allowed in, leading to another round of legal sparring. Eventually the Supreme Court said that, while litigation continues over enforcement of the ban in lower courts, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law of people from the six countries would be let in but that refugees with relationships with U.S. resettlement agencies would not.  Attorney Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii in its challenge to the ban, said in an email on Thursday: “We look forward to the Supreme Court hearing our case in October.” 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 administration defends travel ban supreme court briefed york reuters president donald trump administration reiterated arguments defending temporary travel ban filing supreme court thursday repeatedly citing executive broad powers exclude foreigners united states the travel ban barring refugees people six nations signed executive order march earlier version scrapped face legal challenges two federal appeals courts blocked revised order taking effect supreme court ruled june could move forward limited basis the nation highest court agreed hear oral arguments lawfulness ban brief laid legal position government plans make the state hawaii refugee organizations challenging executive order claim discriminatory muslims citing statements trump made campaign trail calling total complete shutdown muslims entering united however government hamstring broad ruling circuit court appeals blocked ban said campaign statements made president private citizen taken account the brief said mistake probe president motives decisions national security would amount inappropriate judicial psychoanalysis president trump said order necessary review vetting procedures help protect country terrorist attacks the department justice argued case would invite permissible intrusion privileged internal executive branch deliberations plaintiffs case calling deposition white house staff the government repeated stance congress granted president wide authority limit refugee admissions bar entry foreigner group foreigners would detrimental interests united the supreme court ruled parts revised march executive order could go effect june finding anyone iran libya somalia sudan syria yemen bona fide relationship citizen entity could barred however government excluded grandparents family members definition would allowed leading another round legal sparring eventually supreme court said litigation continues enforcement ban lower courts grandparents grandchildren aunts uncles nieces nephews cousins people six countries would let refugees relationships resettlement agencies would attorney neal fatal representing hawaii challenge ban said email thursday we look forward supreme court hearing case politicsnews