On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to revive parts of President Donald Trump’s travel ban on refugees and six Muslim-majority countries, in preparation of a full review of the case in the fall.
The ban is expected go into effect later this week, the decision makes exceptions for individuals who attend school or have family members in the U.S.
Several Washington-based organizations and politicians criticized the Supreme Court’s move.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal said the court’s move would hurt people.
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) June 26, 2017
“Major courts across the country have already rejected the Muslim Ban, recognizing it as a threat to constitutional protections. In allowing parts of the ban to take hold before considering the case, the Supreme Court has done a grave disservice to core American values,” Jayapal said in a prepared statement. “The delayed decision on the ban’s legality means the Trump administration will be able to infringe on the rights of men, women, and children until the court renders its decision.”
Gov. Jay Inslee, who has opposed the ban, called for the Supreme Court to reject it.
“We know that President Trump has made it clear that his travel ban and refugee policies were never intended to be about thoughtful national security, but instead a way of discriminating against certain people for their cultures and religious beliefs,” Inslee said in a prepared statement. “As the high court considers these cases in full, I hope they will consider the president’s own words, and our nation’s constitutional protections against discrimination.”
— Governor Jay Inslee (@GovInslee) June 26, 2017
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office succeeded in getting a similar partial block on the first travel ban, said the Supreme Court’s decision was not a complete win for the Trump administration.
“The Trump Administration has insisted from the start that this executive order is not reviewable by the courts. As I’ve repeatedly said, this is not the law and cannot be the law. By agreeing to review these challenges, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled today that it rejects the Administration’s argument,” Ferguson said in a prepared statement. “The high court left in place portions of the lower court injunctions that provide important protections for individuals connected to Washington’s families, schools and businesses. Although I’m deeply disappointed that the injunctions were narrowed and the travel ban will partly go into effect, the protections that remain are significant.”
OneAmerica, a group dedicated to building power within immigrant communities, issued a statement expressing disappointment in the Supreme Court.
“We are disappointed that the Court decided to allow a portion of the Executive Order to take effect, given the religious discrimination issues raised in the case,” said Rich Stolz, executive director of OneAmerica said in a prepared statement. “Religious discrimination, particularly given the clear intent of this Administration to target Muslim nations and individuals, is contrary to the principles on which this nation is founded.”
Another organization that advocates for immigrant communities, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, expressed similar sentiments.
“We are heartened that many of the people originally affected by this discriminatory ban will continue to be able to reunite with their families or pursue education or career opportunities in this country,” said Jorge Baron, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, in a prepared statement. “However, we are deeply concerned that thousands of others — including refugees with compelling humanitarian needs or serious medical conditions who have already undergone an exhaustive process to enter the United States — will be subjected to a policy driven by religious intolerance, racial animus, and discrimination.”