Handing the White House a huge judicial victory, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of President Trump’s travel ban affecting residents of six majority-Muslim countries.
The justices said the policy can take full effect despite multiple legal challenges against it that haven’t yet made their way through the court system.
The ban applies to people from Syria, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Lower courts had said people from those countries with a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the United States could not be prevented from entry.
According to CNBC, the decision was 7-2, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.
Trump’s executive order, issued early in his first year and since revised a couple of times, temporarily bans immigration and refugee admissions from the aforementioned Middle-Eastern countries because they have significant jihadist presences but little-to-no ability on their end to screen out potential terrorists traveling to our country. Often falsely described as a “Muslim ban,” the moratorium was meant to be a temporary measure meant to give the United States more time to overhaul our own security screening processes, but has been held up in legal challenges for months.
As we here at TFPP have covered throughout this controversy, there is no serious case to be made against the travel ban, on legal, moral, or policy grounds.
Convicted terrorists from every country on the administration’s list have made it here in the past. Past presidents of both parties have exercised the exact same power to protect the American people, largely without dispute.
Further, the so-called “Muslim ban” only applies to 12 percent of the world’s Muslim population, and has no religious test whatsoever for the designated countries, so it can only be a “Muslim ban” if words in the English language no longer have any meaning. And, as far as the only question these judges have any business considering, the Constitution provides non-citizens no right to enter the country, and Congress has expressly empowered the executive branch to deny reentry to even green-card holders.
So make no mistake: the courts have continued to gum up the travel ban’s implementation solely because of how politicized and post-constitutional the Left has made our judiciary over the years.
Assuming the Supreme Court hasn’t seen another Trump-nominated replacement by the time it hears the case on the merits (which would of all but guarantee the travel ban’s survival), the 7-2 ruling would seem to bode well for the policy’s prospects — although one assumes Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer would be inclined to vote against Trump, and who knows where Anthony Kennedy’s whims will take him on that day…
Trump issued his first travel ban within days of being sworn in as president. That version tightened the country’s refugee and visa policies and suspended almost all refugee admissions for four months.
Trump issued a revised version in March after the first was blocked by federal courts. The second one expired in September after a lengthy court fight and was replaced with the current version.