Metro Detroit community gears up for travel ban fight in Supreme Court decision

(WJBK) - In January, protestors took to the streets, attorneys took to the courts and President Trump took to Twitter - all over his travel restrictions banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

That first ban was ruled unconstitutional. By March, Trump had amended it to six countries - Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Again, it was ruled unconstitutional. And now, the Supreme Court has weighed in.

"I think it's a great victory especially for the president and for the safety of the United States," said Rocky Raczkowski, former majority leader of the Michigan House. "The prime focus here is not a partisan one - and it's not a political one - it's about making sure that the people of the United States are safe and secure."

The Supreme Court will hear the case in October but for now ruled the ban can be implemented in part, keeping out those with no direct connection to the United States, but allowing many others in.

"Folks who have relationships here with the United States are still able to come, whether they're students or doctors or professors - just like they used to," said Shereef Akeel, a civil rights attorney fighting the ban.

But that's not good enough for Dawud Walid, local director of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

"Mr. Trump was extremely explicit when he was running as well as even afterward in some of his tweets of the reason why he signed these orders and this is a ban and it's based upon what we believe a violation of the first amendment," he said. "They basically have ignored the anti-Muslim premise or anti-Muslim bias behind the ban to begin with so we find this to be very troubling."

In a fight that seems to pit religion against national security, constitutional law professor Gerald Fisher says the Supreme Court will have much to consider come October.

"To what extent can you consider a campaign trail comment as compared to the specific grounds of the order?" he said. "We have the whole question of religious rights under the establishment clause. On the other hand, the government is going to have a major position to take saying our purpose is national security."