U.S. Supreme Court Postpones Review of Trump's Previous Immigration Order

The U.S. Supreme Court has canceled a session to review cases related to Donald Trump's previous immigration order, which barred citizens from predominantly Muslim countries from traveling to the United States, following the announcement of a new travel restriction order affecting eight countries. One day before the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump issued a new order imposing additional barriers and restrictions for citizens of these eight countries intending to travel to the U.S. Iran remains among these countries, along with Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela, which have been added to the list. The session was scheduled for October, where plaintiffs and defenders of the first order were to present their evidence and statements regarding its 'legality' in the highest judicial body in the United States. Initial reports following the issuance of the new order indicated that the recent bans and restrictions might complicate the Supreme Court's review of the previous order. According to the Supreme Court's ruling, 'oral arguments regarding the case will not take place on the scheduled date and will be postponed to another date.' The parties involved in the previous order case were Trump against the International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump against Hawaii. The parties were supposed to submit their briefs by October 5, and their statements were to be presented in the Supreme Court that same month. The previous decision of the Supreme Court was to allow parts of Trump's earlier order to be implemented until the review of the documents. The deadline set in the previous order from the President of the United States expired on Sunday. This order, which prohibited the entry of citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries, faced criticism and opposition both inside and outside the United States. State courts in the U.S. also blocked its implementation as a violation of constitutional law and immigration regulations. In the new order, North Korea and Venezuela are not considered Muslim-majority countries, and a significant number of citizens from Chad are Christian or non-Muslim. One of the arguments raised in the order issued on March 8 was that favoring one religion over another effectively violates the U.S. Constitution. However, experts now say challenging the new presidential order in judicial forums will be more difficult. One of Donald Trump's main campaign slogans during last year's election was a temporary ban on Muslim entry into the U.S. The U.S. government argues that the purpose of the bans and restrictions is to enhance the security of the country and its citizens. On the other hand, civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups have condemned both the previous and new orders, stating that this order is largely similar to previous directives and is 'discriminatory.' The new order states that the review of visas for travelers, issuance of electronic passports, and transfer of security data in dangerous cases to the U.S. are among the main issues. In this order, Iraq and Sudan have been removed from the bans, while Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea have been added to the list. According to the announced directive, Iranian citizens, whether as immigrants or non-immigrants, are currently banned from entering the U.S., except for those holding student visas 'F' and 'M' and exchange visas 'J.' However, these individuals must also undergo very thorough scrutiny. Reuters reports that representatives of the attorneys general in Hawaii, California, and New York, states that had opposed the previous order, have announced they are reviewing the new order.