Trump Travel Ban Upheld By Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban that prohibits nationals of certain countries from entering the United States as either immigrants or non-immigrants, barring certain exceptions. The ruling found that the government has "set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review."

The ban upholds the third version of Trump's travel ban. The order bans nationals of five Muslim-majority countries as well as Venezuela and North Korea from entering the United States, with differing travel restrictions on the countries. For example, Iranian nationals are allowed to enter the United States on valid student and exchange visitor visas but not on other immigrant and non-immigrant visas.

Iran, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela and North Korea are the countries affected by the ban. Chad was originally one of the countries on the latest proclamation but was removed. Two previous iterations of the travel ban were struck down in lower courts before the latest version was issued via presidential proclamation in September 2017.

The court voted 5-4 to uphold the ban with the court's more conservative justices voting to affirm the ban. The justices overturned a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed a district court judgement granting a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcing the ban. The plaintiffs in the case were the state of Hawaii, three individuals with foreign relatives affected by the ban and the Muslim Association of Hawaii.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said Trump's proclamation is "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority" under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Addressing the statements of Trump and his advisers with respect to Muslims and Islam, which the plaintiffs argued casts doubt on the official objective of the proclamation, the court said the issue was not whether to denounce the statements.

"It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility," Roberts wrote. "In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself."

The proclamation itself is facially neutral towards religion, the court found. The suspension of entry of certain foreign nationals in an act that is well within the executive authority of the president, the court said.

"We express no view on the soundness of the policy," the opinion said.

In a statement, Trump called the ruling a "tremendous victory." Below is the full statement issued by the president:

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution. The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States. In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country. This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country. As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens. Our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch.

Civil rights organizations denounced the ruling, with the American Civil Liberties Union saying it would go down as one of the court's "great failures." The Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a statement that the ruling was a setback and not the end of the road. CAIR said the responsibility "will continue to be on the American Muslim community and its allies to push for an end to the Muslim Ban."

Members of Congress were divided on the ruling with Democrats denouncing the decision.

Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota who is one of only two Muslim members of Congress, said in a statement that the decision "undermines the core value of religious tolerance on which America was founded." He added that he was deeply disappointed that the ruling gives legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia.

Hawaii Lt. Gov. Doug Chin, who was the state's attorney general when Hawaii challenged the latest version of the ban, said in a statement,"I hurt today for Hawaii families and others who have experienced discrimination and scapegoating due to President Trump's bullying remarks and orders," according to Hawaii News Now.

Addressing the order's merits, the court said that while the plaintiffs and dissent suggest the policy is overbroad and does little to serve national security interests, "we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive's predictive judgements on such matters." The court also said that three features of the proclamation; the removal of three Muslim-majority countries from the restrictions, the exemptions for various categories of foreign nationals and a waiver program open to all covered foreign nationals all support the government's claim of a legitimate national security interest.

Photo by Simone Wilson/Patch