Supreme Court Partially Lifts Injunction on Revised Trump Travel Ban | Illinois Immigration Law

Supreme Court Partially Lifts Injunction on Revised Trump Travel Ban | Illinois Immigration Law

Video by Attorney Kevin O'Flaherty
Article written by Illinois & Iowa Attorney Kevin O'Flaherty
Updated on
November 1, 2019

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments over President Trump’s revised travel ban.  Oral arguments will be held in the session that begins in October of 2017.  In the meantime, the Supreme Court has partially lifted the lower courts’ preliminary injunctions that had prevented the travel ban from going into effect.  

‍Trump issued the initial travel ban as an executive order which prevented individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Iraq from entering the United States for 90 days.  The executive order also prevented refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling preventing this initial ban from going into effect.  

Rather than appealing the 9th Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, President Trump revised and reissued the executive order to resolve some of the 9th Circuit’s stated reasons for blocking the initial travel ban.  The two primary changes were (1) that Iraq was removed from the ban; and (2) an exception to the ban was explicitly carved out for green card holders and dual citizens.  

‍As expected, the revised ban was challenged in the federal district courts.  In two separate cases, district courts in Hawaii and Maryland issued orders granting preliminary injunctions which prevented the ban from going into effect until the case is decided on the merits.  

‍The Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 9th Circuits upheld the district courts’ injunctions for different reasons.   The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals thought it likely that the travel ban was intended to discriminate based on religion, and that it would therefore be likely to be held unconstitutional.  The 9th Circuit found it likely that President Trump overstepped the authority granted to him by the Immigration and Nationality Act.  

‍The Supreme Court, upon agreeing to hear these cases, consolidated the appeal from the 4th Circuit and the appeal from the 9th Circuit into one case and limited the scope of the lower court’s injunctions.  Its ruling lifts the injunction for foreign nationals who lack a “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.”  The effect is to carve out an exception to the travel ban for individuals who do have a bona fide relationship with entities in the U.S.     

This means that the travel ban will go into effect for foreign nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen:

  • do not have green cards and who are not dual citizens;
  • Who do not have family in the United States;
  • ​​Who have not been accepted to a U.S. university; and
  • Who do not have a job with a U.S. company.  

‍The executive order will likely go into effect within 72 hours of the ruling.  It will last for 90 days with respect to travelers from the named countries and 120 days with respect to refugees.  

‍Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion stating that the injunction should have been lifted in full, arguing that the exception that the court carved out of the revised executive order left officials with the burden of determining which foreign nationals have a “bona fide relationship” with entities in the U.S. 

This is not the final word on the subject.  Although the Supreme Court has simply partially lifted a preliminary injunction that was to be in effect during the pendency of the case, it has yet to rule on the merits of the case.  However, because the court will not rule on the merits until after the 90 day duration of at least one portion of the travel ban, this ruling effectively allows the travel ban to go into effect, subject to the Court’s exception for “bona fide relationships.”  Its final ruling on the matter will have more of an effect on future executive orders than the order in question.

Additional Financial Considerations
from Financial Experts

From Financial Experts

For many years, financial institutions have been creating a disservice to clients and the industry as a whole for years.
View More Professional Considerations

Presented By O'Flaherty Law

Trump travel ban explained

Need Legal Help? 

Schedule a

What to Expect From a Consultation

The purpose of a free consultation is to determine whether our firm is a good fit for your legal needs. Although we often discuss expected results and costs, our attorneys do not give legal advice unless and until you choose to retain us. Although most consultations are complimentary, some may carry a charge depending on the type of matter and meeting location.

Leave a Comment With Your Questions

Read more about


Contact us for a Free Consultation

Schedule a free consultation

O'Flaherty Law is happy to meet with you by phone or at our office locations in:

Who We Are
We are your community law firm. Our Illinois & Iowa Attorneys are committed to providing exceptional client service in a cost-effective manner in the areas of Family Law, Probate, Estate Planning, Civil Litigation, Guardianship, Criminal Defense, Corporate & Contract Law, Bankruptcy and Real Estate.

Some of Our Accomplishments

Best Child Support Lawyers in Chicago
DuPage County Probate Attorney
Kevin P. O'Flaherty
Rated by Super Lawyers

loading ...
Naperville attorney
DuPage County Probate Attorney

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required