This isn’t really a hard case. The Supreme Court should (which doesn’t mean it will) strike down all the blocks on Trump’s immigration bans, in light of the statute that gives the President sweeping authority to restrict immigration:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.
The courts are supposed to determine whether or not new measures are in line with existing laws. That’s all. In light of that law, the courts should all have found Trump’s executive orders on immigration to be perfectly valid. Instead, none of the courts that blocked his executive orders even mentioned this law, not even long enough to explain why it didn’t apply in this case. They all just ignored it and struck down the immigration orders on the basis of Trump’s supposed animus against Muslims: “the executive order ‘speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,’ Judge Roger Gregory wrote.”
In reality, even if it did drip with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination, which it doesn’t, it wouldn’t thereby become illegal. The question of a measure’s legality is not based on the President’s mindset or feelings, but on whether it complies with or violates existing statutes. The above statute clearly gives the President the authority to restrict immigration. And to brush aside so cavalierly the issue of national security, which Trump and his team have made quite clear from the beginning that these executive orders are all about, is irresponsible in the extreme, and could very well end up getting Americans killed.
We can only hope that the Supreme Court will recognize all this and rule in favor of the national interests and security of the American people. But these days, you never know.
“Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Restore Travel Ban,” by Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, June 1, 2017:
President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately reinstate his stalled travel ban, aiming to reverse a string of courtroom losses and setting up the biggest legal showdown of his young presidency.
The request puts a Trump initiative before the Supreme Court for the first time and brings the nine justices into a national drama over claims that the president is targeting Muslims and abusing his authority. The case will give the first indications of how Chief Justice John Roberts’s court will approach one of the most controversial presidents in the nation’s history.
Trump is asking the court to hear arguments on an expedited basis and to reinstate the executive order in the interim.
At issue is Trump’s executive order temporarily barring entry into the U.S. by people from six predominantly Muslim countries in an effort to protect the country from terrorists. The administration asked the court to let the ban take effect while the justices decide whether to review a lower court ruling that said the policy was “steeped in animus and directed at a single religious group.”
As a practical matter, the request for immediate action could determine the fate of the policy, given that the ban would be in effect only for 90 days. The court acts on such requests based on the legal papers without hearing arguments.
A Virginia-based federal appeals court voted 10-3 to uphold a nationwide halt to the policy, saying the travel ban was driven by unconstitutional religious motivations. The majority pointed to Trump’s campaign vow to bar Muslims from entering the country and to the special preference for religious minorities included in an earlier version of the ban. The appeals court’s May 25 opinion also faulted the White House for rushing out the first version without consulting with the national security agencies.
The executive order “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote…..