Trump's travel ban faces US Supreme Court reckoning

Frederick Owens
April 26, 2018

In his statement, the President of trump explained that this was done after the country tightened security measures, making their national passports "more secure", as well as improved exchange of information with the United States to search for persons suspected of terrorist activities.

Until Wednesday, the court had never heard arguments on the legal merits of the travel ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into the United States illegally as children.

WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court justices jumped into the debate over President Donald Trump's travel ban Wednesday, issuing rapid-fire questions and hypotheticals as they weighed the president's power to protect the country against allegations that he had exceeded his authority and was motivated by bias. Then, in September 2017, President Trump announced a third order, as the second was set to expire.

From the other side, Kennedy challenged Katyal about whether the ban would be unending. "That indicates there'll be a reassessment and the president has continuing discretion", Kennedy said.

Apparently signaling where he stood, Alito noted that the policy was hardly a blanket ban on Muslims, affecting just some eight percent of the world's Muslim population.

Khizr Khan, a gold star father who's been critical of Donald Trump, meets with U.S. Sen.

The NYIC has been leading the fight against the Muslim Ban since January, 2017 when the first Executive Order came out, with the #NoBanJFK movement, and assisting travelers from over 20 countries and organizing hundreds of lawyers and volunteers.

This latest version limits immigration from several Muslim majority countries, in addition to as well as North Korea and Venezuela. Two previous versions were temporary.

An amicus brief filed March 30 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop, Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Legal Immigration Network said the ban singles out "populations of six overwhelmingly Muslim nations for sweeping immigration restrictions" that do not exist elsewhere in the world.

More news: Bayern Munich boss Jupp Heynckes has "a good feeling" about semi-final

The bigger question, I think, is whether the Supremes can stop this game from going on in perpetuity. The ban's challengers are now facing the justices' questions.

Hearing the last arguments of its nine-month term Wednesday, the court took its first direct look at a policy that indefinitely bars more than 150 million people from entering the country.

"What if the military advisers tell the president that in their judgment, the president ought to order a strike, an air strike against Syria ... does that mean he can't because you would regard that as discrimination against a majority-Muslim country?" he asked.

"Where does the president get the authority to do more than what Congress has already enacted?" Congress should seriously consider it for judges who are irresponsibly abusing their positions on the bench to do whatever it takes to keep the nation's duly elected president from actually governing.

Also not surprising was the reaction Francisco's comments inspired on Twitter.

'You're saying that everything he said is irrelevant?' Kennedy asked Francisco. Lower courts blocked it and it was withdrawn.

"Why doesn't this fall squarely within the language of [the Immigration and Naturalization Act]?" asked Justice Samuel Alito, noting that the law gives the President the power to temporarily suspend "the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens" if he finds that doing so is in the national interest.

Following the Supreme Court's deliberation, we are hopeful that these bans, in all their forms, will be relegated to the footnotes of history.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington is seen November 8, 2017.

Other reports by LeisureTravelAid

Discuss This Article