The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision concludes a protracted legal fight over the travel ban, which critics on the left argued was discriminatory toward Muslims. The Trump White House consistently contended that the ban was a national security issues, and a continuation of a ban first enacted under the Obama administration.
The Supreme Court delivered a major victory to the Trump administration, as the court justices affirmed the US President’s vast powers over matters of national security.
The latest version of the travel ban provides a range of travel restrictions against five muslim majority countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The ban also includes North Korea and Venezuela. Chad, another majority-Muslim nation, was removed from the list in April.
Trump hailed the legal victory on Twitter: “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. “Wow!”
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris go over the massive Supreme Court win for Trump, what it means for his presidency and how the liberal left establishment will react.
Although several federal courts had blocked the ban nationwide, the justices allowed the policy to take full effect in December pending consideration of the merits of the case. The temporary order allowing full implementation was an ominous sign for opponents of the Trump policy, particularly since only two justices — liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — dissented.
The ruling on Tuesday reverses the lower court decisions and will allow the policy to remain in place indefinitely, although litigation over the ban may continue.
“The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “The text says nothing about religion.”
Roberts said second-guessing the currently stated goals of the policy is beyond the proper realm of the judiciary.
“We cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters, all of which ‘are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy,’” he wrote.
The court’s majority ultimately held that Trump’s anti-Muslim statements were irrelevant as long as the policy had a rational purpose apart from the rhetoric.
Suspending entry of foreigners into the U.S. “is well within executive authority,” Roberts argued, adding that the justices “express no view on the soundness of the policy.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s opinion in favor of the ban’s legality, but he also delivered what appeared to be an implicit rebuke of Trump that did not mention the president by name.
“There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention,” Kennedy wrote. “That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects. … Indeed, the very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.”