SCOTUS Appears to Lean Trump's Way on Travel Ban
The justices grilled the travel ban's opponents over their charge that it is unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in President Donald Trump v. Hawaii, the case regarding his travel ban. By most indications, it appeared to go well for Trump, unlike in lower courts, which mendaciously struck it down. The case against the travel ban presented by Neal Katyal, the attorney representing Hawaii, rested on the dishonest argument that Trump intended it as a ban against Muslims, making it unconstitutional. The High Court’s conservative justices saw through the charade.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the Trump administration, astutely noted that of the eight countries barred under the travel ban, only six of them are Muslim-majority nations. In fact, he said, “The vast majority of the world, including the vast majority of the Muslim world,” was not included in the ban. Francisco added, “It would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine, since not only does it exclude the vast majority of the Muslim world, it also omits three Muslim-majority countries that were covered by past orders.”
Justice Samuel Alito appeared to agree with Francisco and pointed out that Trump’s executive order affected only 8% of the world’s Muslim population. “If you look at what was done,” Alito said, “it does not look at all like a Muslim ban.”
Katyal repeatedly referenced Trump’s campaign rhetoric as evidence to support the charge that the ban was designed to target Muslims, but he also conceded that the actual language of the executive order instituting the travel ban did not specifically target Muslims. Francisco countered that campaign rhetoric was irrelevant and that the actual language of the executive order should be what is judged by the law. The statute that gives the president broad regulatory authority over alien entry into the U.S. states:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
While the Left and much of the mainstream media have from the very beginning erroneously labeled Trump’s travel ban as a Muslim ban, it has done so not based upon the actual language of the EO but upon their anti-Trump bias. Recall the actual reason Trump ordered the travel ban was to protect American citizens, one of the primary responsibilities of the president. Due to the fact that several countries’ vetting standards did not meet U.S. safety standards, Trump acted. The good news is that it appears the majority of the SCOTUS justices are seeing through the partisan bias and are looking at the letter of the law. The judges that have so thoroughly undermined the Rule of Law in their rulings on DACA should learn a thing or two.