This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's travel ban on six Muslim-majority countries and refugees could halt many already vetted would-be immigrants from entering Utah until the justices rule in the fall.
The high court is expected to hear oral arguments in October on the restrictions that would ban for 90 days visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and put a hold on refugee immigration for 120 days.
The delays are necessary, the administration said, to address gaps in the screening and vetting procedures.
In Utah, representatives of refugee resettlement programs said Monday they were reviewing the legal ramifications of the court's move.
"Right now, we don't know what it means," said Natalie El-Deiry of the International Rescue Committee's (IRC) Salt Lake City office. "We are just reeling from the decision."
Refugees from those African and Middle East countries named in the ban are the majority of people resettled in Salt Lake City by IRC, El-Deiry said.
"It will impact them," she said.
The court's decision could put the brakes on refugee resettlements for at least 90 days before the justices hear the case. But Aden Batar, director of Immigration and Refugee Resettlement for Catholic Community Services (CCS), said the high court's exception regarding relationships may not stop all refugees from coming to the U.S.
The justices stated that the executive order "may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."
Nonetheless, CCS is reviewing the ruling to determine exactly how it will impact refugees who already had been cleared for immigration.
"We don't know how this will be implemented," Batar said. "We are waiting for guidance from the State Department."
In a prepared statement, the national office of CCS said it was "deeply disappointed" in the Supreme Court's decision.
"As a country founded by those searching for religious freedom, this is a blow to our national identity," it said. "Refugees are innocent victims of their situations, whom the United States has the ability and responsibility to care for and protect."
Refugees are vetted more intensely than any other group seeking entrance into the U.S., according to David Miliband, president and CEO of the national IRC.
"The court's decision threatens damage to vulnerable people waiting to come to the U.S.," he said in a prepared statement, "people with urgent medical conditions, innocent people left adrift, all of whom have been thoroughly vetted."
Critics have called the proposal a unconstitutional ban on Muslims.
But the Supreme Court on Monday faulted the two federal appeals courts that had blocked the travel policy for going too far to limit Trump's authority over immigration.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., said the ban was "rooted in religious animus" toward Muslims. It also referred to Trump's campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country, as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the travel policy does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination.