Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 in Favor of Trump's Travel Ban

"The Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review."

|

Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump's executive proclamation banning travelers from certain largely majority-Muslim countries. "Because there is persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility," declared the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in Trump v. Hawaii, "we must accept that independent justification." This decision reverses a lower court ruling that had blocked the travel ban from going into effect.

At the center of the case is Trump's September 2017 "Proclamation No. 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats." At issue before the justices was whether this proclamation represented an invalid exercise of federal immigration power and also whether it violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by heaping official disfavor on a religious minority, particularly when the proclamation is viewed in light of Trump's long record of making anti-Muslim statements.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, ruled in Trump's favor on both counts.

"By its plain language," the chief justice wrote, federal immigration law "grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings—following a worldwide, multi-agency review—that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest."

Roberts then had this to say about the Establishment Clause challenge:

Plaintiffs argue that this President's words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is 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. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.

Writing in dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, argued that the Court should not have decided the case until it had the opportunity to hear additional arguments about the real-world implementation of the travel ban, particularly on how its "exemption and waiver" process is actually functioning. "If this Court must decide the question without this further litigation," Breyer wrote, "I would, on balance, find the evidence of antireligious bias."

In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, charged the majority with turning a blind eye to the president's blatant Establishment Clause violation. The Court "leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns," Sotomayor wrote. "Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim."

At its heart, this case was about how much deference the federal courts owe to the executive branch when the executive is acting in the name of national security. According to the Court's 5-4 ruling, the executive is entitled to significant deference in such matters. "The Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review," wrote Chief Justice Roberts. "We express no view on the soundness of the policy."

The Supreme Court's opinion in Trump v. Hawaii is available here.

Advertisement

NEXT: The "Travel Ban" Decision, in One (Non-Snarky) Sentence

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Despite the legal holding here, can anyone really say with a straight face that a presidential candidate proposing a “ban” on a particular religious group is not disqualifying? If not, then do you also think that Gary Johnson’s ill conceived “bake the cake” and “burka ban” positions were not disqualifying?

    1. It should also be noted that the liberal members of the Court also voted to end free speech in the name of the almighty god abortion in a case that was also decided today, despite the clear religious animus involved in that case. So the liberal members are not really defending the Establishment Clause so much as just defending their own political positions

    2. Because laws are judged by their language and not on whether their authors are poopy heads according to the judge. It was a facially nuetral exercise of lawful government authority done so in a consistent way. It is really that simple

      1. So you choose to completely disregard my point “beyond the legal holding here”

        1. I don’t see any beyond the legal holding. Trump is President. He has all the powers that come with that. Nothing he says changes that.

          1. So, you don’t think excluding people from entry into the country based upon their faith is a large extension of government?

            You can argue over whether or not the travel ban did that, but he most definitely asserted that he wanted to ban Muslims during the election

            1. That is not what is happening here. Beyond that, if there is a rational reason to do it, then it is permissible. The government does not owe non citizens outside the US the same protections it owes citizens or those in the US legally.

              1. This is what I’ve been trying to explain to people. It’s not ALL muslim countries – we still get Muslim immigrants, and some of the countries banned aren’t really Muslim. It just so happens that Terrorists are usually Muslim, and radicalism has taken over these countries. It’s just this weird perception the MSM has painted over the policy that simply isn’t true. Even if it were true, Trump would still have the power to do it because they are not US citizens. Who cares? We don’t have an obligation to help the world – that’s a Bush era argument. The left might as well say they want to be the policemen of the world. The fact is we need to bring in less people who will vote socialist, and focus on helping the people already here, who believe in freedom.

            2. Expand on your position here and push for a president to be impeached for their public and political comments rather than actions that are unconstitutional/unlawful.

            3. “So, you don’t think excluding people from entry into the country based upon their faith is a large extension of government?”

              I think you are arguing about something that Trump never actually did.

              1. He said he wanted to do that during the campaign. All I’m saying is “how is that not as equally disqualifying as Gary Johnson proclaiming ‘bake the cake’?”

                1. What he said he wanted to do during the campaign and what he actually did do once President are not the same things.

                  That’s why I said other acts. A distinction SCOTUS understands, but one you studiously avoid noticing.

                  1. You are clearly not getting the point here. I’m not talking about the ruling. I’m asking people to justify their vote for Trump, given his past statements

                    1. So, rather than discuss the ruling, or the predicate action of of POTUS you’d rather change the subject?

                      Yeah, we get that.

                      You know, you and Tony are objectively making the same argument in this very thread. I’d call that being on the warning track of rhetorical life.

                    2. Oh, Lord. I’m a right-wing fanatic when I oppose open borders and I’m Tony when I think that a candidate showing religious animus in a campaign is not worthy of someone’s vote.

                    3. Yes, what he said was unbecoming for a candidate in a country founded on religious liberty.

                      He’s hardly the first to cross that Rubicon, animosity towards traditional religion has become a staple part of some types of American politics. But it seems to many that only one side gets held to the higher standard.

                      So maybe people have given up on nice guy candidates who lose politely.

                      You might not like it, but you’d better recognize how it came to be so.

                    4. Just Say’n|6.26.18 @ 12:53PM|#
                      You are clearly not getting the point here. I’m not talking about the ruling. I’m asking people to justify their vote for Trump, given his past statements

                      You really don’t know why people voted for Trump after all the things he campaigned on and what the silent majority wanted a president to do?

                      Its one thing to hate Trump personally but another to refuse to acknowledge why people honestly like what he is doing as president.

            4. It’s not based on religion, it’s based on country of origin. People are purposely ignoring the facts that

              A) Venezuela and North Korea are included in this ban

              B) Out of the top 10 Muslim populations in the world, only 1 (Iran) is included in the ban

              If Trump hated Muslims and was purposely banning them, why not target Indonesia or Pakistan?

            5. He also tempered that desire to just stop terrorism and not a full ban by September of the election year. Weird you don’t know that.

            6. You can argue over whether or not the travel ban did that, but he most definitely asserted that he wanted to ban Muslims during the election

              Except that he didn’t.

              At least not to anyone who wasn’t already testing out TDS with a side of RDS.

              He was in full campaign hyperbole mode and everyone knew exactly what he meant because he elaborated on it. Everyone knew exactly which muslims he was talking about.

            7. “So, you don’t think excluding people from entry into the country based upon their faith is a large extension of government?”

              That isn’t happening. The ban is for travel from specific countries that are either state spmsord of terror (Iran), in the midst of civil war (Yemen), or have no functional government (Somalia).

              No one is banning all Muslims from traveling here. We would have to ban entry from dozens of countries, including Saudi Arabia. Which has never even been proposed.

              After all this time, given the exposure this story has gotten, how can you be so profoundly misinformed?

          2. It was kinda strange this went to SCOTUS.

            1. Yes, but what part of ‘Trump’ did you not notice?

              1. lol.

                Touche.

                1. There are dozens of federal judges that congress should be impeaching for their partisanship.

          3. He just wants to whine and let some spittle fly.

            My recommendation is to pull out your umbrella until he’s finished.

      2. laws are judged by their language

        If only that were the case.

    3. To be fair, GayJay backtracked on his burqa ban almost immediately.

      1. True. Which made the fact that he stuck to the “bake the cake” position pretty clear that he endorsed the ACLU version of religious liberty which does not extend to Christians. I don’t see how that’s better than the right-wing position that religious liberty only extends to Christians.

        1. It’s not.

        2. “the right-wing position that religious liberty only extends to Christians”

          Could you be more specific?

          The Becket Fund is right-wing, yet as my link shows they went to bat for a Sikh.

          1. Eddie, I’ve mentioned the Becket Fund numerous times as the only true religious liberty group in the country. I applaud the work that they do and I am a financial supporter.

            When I say “right-wing position” I mean the talking heads on cable or some smaller non-profits that only take Christian legal complaints. We’re on the same page here, I think.

            1. No, you’re not.

              Cite the ‘right-wing’ Christian group that has the capability but refuses to help anyone but Christians in religious liberty cases.

              1. While not explicitly stating it in their mission statement, the Alliance Defending Freedom focuses nearly exclusively on Christian legal issues. That’s their choice, but I don’t consider that as defending the “principle” of religious liberty.

                The Becket Fund is excellent

                1. I understand that the ADF represents Christian clients and not other religions – but is it because they would deny religious freedom to other religions?

              2. I suppose that Roy “Thank Heaven for Little Girls” Moore might be one of the Christian-only people – but since he lost to a Democrat in Alabama he officially counts as fringe.

                1. Even though his accuser admitted to tampering with evidence, clearly falsified evidence, and only raised the issue when he reached a certain office.

                  Which one is fringe?

                  1. I could always be wrong.

    4. “a presidential candidate proposing a “ban” on a particular religious group is not disqualifying?”

      Disqualifying of what? His candidacy?

      His other acts?

      1. Disqualifying of earning the vote of anyone who believes in less government

        1. A reasonable position, just not a very reliable one.

        2. Ok, since not one of the candidates who made the ballot in 2016 didn’t take a position on SOME subject that wasn’t equally disqualifying, is this an argument for not voting?

          Because it’s a damned poor argument for voting for some other, equally disqualified candidate.

        3. Are you too daft to understand there are other issues besides just his statements regarding Muslims? If anyone disqualifies a candidate for a single disagreement, nobody would vote.

        4. Depends on who he’s running against.

    5. I have impacted $14923 in one month by taking a shot at the web from home in my part to time. It’s a straightforward work to demonstrate change over typical office work. Everybody can arrive this position and makes more pay online easily. Just reorder this site in the program and after that take after unpretentious components to start increasing right now………. https://howtoearn.club

      1. But are Muslims eligible?

      2. If you keep taking shots at the web you’ll go blind.

    6. Is it anymore outrageous than a president calling for a repeal of the 2nd amendment? Until they sign or implement an actual bill, who cares?

      1. Revoking the American people’s right to keep and bear arms would be far worse than banning a certain religion from entering the country. Aliens outside the US have no rights that the US is bound to respect.

    7. The ban included Venezeula and North Korea.

      There are 47 Muslim majority nations; the ban only included six highly dysfunctional nations with no internal institutions to aid in vetting visa applicants.

    8. Trump did propose a “ban” on any religious group as any official act as POTUS. The “ban” was from specific countries. By your reasoning any ban on any country is a ban on the beliefs of the majority of that country.

      1. “did” == did not

    9. As any non-shithead learned in 5th grade, and even shitheads can comprehend in about 10 seconds of Google, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have 650 million Muslims between them, and those nations are not on the ban list.

      Chad just removed itself from the ban list by improving its passport control.

      Kuwait, 98% Muslim, uses the same list the US does.

      Obviously because of anti-Muslim bias.

      Feel free to share the above facts with any shitheads you encounter.

      1. Yeah, but it wouldn’t do any good. Shitheads don’t care about facts. With them, everything is about emotions and feeling good.

    10. Depends who he’s running against.

  2. This ruling is literally genocide. / progtards everywhere.

    1. The dicta overrules Karematsu. Just another example of Trump destroying a Democrat’s legacy.

      1. That was a priceless reversal which justices almost never do.

        It won’t make up for Robert’s ObamaCare ruling but it was a constitutional decision to side with Executive power and reversing FDR’s internment policy.

  3. Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen it’s true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”…

    …and I’ll look down, and whisper “no.”

    They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father, or President Truman. Decent men, who believed in a day’s work for a day’s pay. Instead the followed the droppings of lechers and Communists and didn’t realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don’t tell me they didn’t have a choice.

    Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers… and all of a sudden, nobody can think of anything to say.

    1. Great graphic novel, wasn’t it.

    2. On October 1, 2015, it was reported that HBO was in talks with Snyder to make a TV series based on the comics with no word about it being related to the film.As of 2016 it is believed that talks about the TV series are on hold as a result of Snyder’s involvement with the DC Extended Universe. In 2017, it was reported that Snyder was no longer involved, but Damon Lindelof would be adapting it for HBO.
      -Wikipedia

      1. Maybe Rorschach could get his own series? Kind of like a poorer, darker Batman…

        1. More like a darker Queston.

  4. So, given the comments of the Mexican president-to-be, should Trump decide to really tighten the border due to security issues of a threatened invasion of migrants, he seems to have a thoroughly legal path to do so.

    1. Yup. And a certain Hawaiian judge would be on pretty thin ice dictating military policy in the middle east, too.

      1. That Hawaiian judge really had some crazy balls to think his national injunction would not be swatted down.

        Some lefty judge, covering one of the smallest states, in the most reversed circuit thinks the Supreme Court would let this fly.

        1. Why this judge thinks that the SCOTUS would take away enumerated powers when the court (on both sides of the robe) continually expand government power.

        2. Hawaiian Jude’s should be impeached by congress. They need to send a message.

        3. He didn’t care if it would fly. Like the anti-abortion assholes, “At least he saved some Muslims in the meantime.”

          Except, of course, he didn’t.

        4. It took over a year to swat down. The process is the punishment.

  5. At first its heart, the case was about a duely elected President exercising his Constitutionally mandated powers. We may disagree with his reason for doing so, but Trump 8n no way exceeded his authority under the Constitution.

    1. The President is the one briefed about national security threats every morning so some latitude seems reasonable in that arena.

      1. Not this president. Too boring.

        1. You know Past Me, I don’t remember doing this much shitposting.

          Maybe my being sent back in time split the timelines and now you’re even more annoying than I thought.

          1. It’s been a rough couple weeks.

            1. No one cares about your sex life.

            2. Just wait for how rough election 2018 will be for lefties like you.

            3. Tony, if you were a less horrible person, maybe tings would get better for you.

    2. the case was about a duely elected President exercising his Constitutionally mandated powers.

      Citation needed.

      The SCOTUS decision recognizes that the power has been granted by Congress, not mandated by the Constitution.

      The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under ?1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. Pp. 9?24.

      1. Article I, section 8 and section 9 give the power to Congress to regulate immigration, naturalization, repel invasions, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

        Article II:
        The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
        […]
        Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      2. Does the Constitution not grant authority for Congress to set immigration policy?

        1. Section 9: Limits on Congress

          It limited congress from regulating the importation of slaves until 1808. If congress had the power to regulate immigration it would have been listed under Section 8. The power of naturalization is clearly stated in section 8. It was put in there to avoid giving one state the power to effectively naturalize their immigrants in all states.

          1. Migrants are freepersons who are not Americans. Article I, section 9 discusses slaves and migrants. Article I, section 9 is a limit to Congress until 1808 and then the restriction is off.

            Why would it need a restriction if it was not a power of Congress?

            The Founders chose to put that clause in Section 9.

            1. As to the intention of the framers of the Constitution in the clause relating to “the migration and importation of persons, &c.” the best key may perhaps be found in the case which produced it. The African trade in slaves had long been odious to most of the States, and the importation of slaves into them had been prohibited. Particular States however continued the importation, and were extremely averse to any restriction on their power to do so. In the convention the former States were anxious, in framing a new constitution, to insert a provision for an immediate and absolute stop to the trade. The latter were not only averse to any interference on the subject; but solemnly declared that their constituents would never accede to a Constitution containing such an article. Out of this conflict grew the middle measure providing that Congress should not interfere until the year 1808; with an implication, that after that date, they might prohibit the importation of slaves into the States then existing, & previous thereto, into the States not then existing….-James Madison letter to Robert Walsh

      3. He is constitutionally mandated to faithfully execute the laws, including that one.

  6. ” In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

    I nailed it months ago: The Supreme Court was not going to have the judiciary declaring that a particular President wasn’t entitled to exercise the powers of his office because they doubted his motives.

    Only thing I got wrong is that I really thought there’d be at least one defection from the leftwing minority on the Court. How they must hate him, to have been unwilling to have joined this particular majority!

    1. I, too, expected at least Kagan, and possibly Breyer, to join the majority.

      But if you read the opinions it really is 5-2-2, with Kagan and Breyer knowing their votes weren’t needed, so they could say they kind-of sort-of agreed with the majority, but we will virtue signal our base instead. Don’t want to be blackballed from all those dinner parties, after all.

      Sotomayor’s dissent was basically, “Maxine – hold my beer.”

      1. That’s how I read it too. Not that Kagan disagreed, but that she wanted more information based on pending litigation to have a more stable base on which to stand.

  7. SUCK IT lefties and open border people.

    1. Because that’s all that matters, obviously. Just trolling others

      1. What matters is preventing brown people who talk funny from entering our proud nation.

        1. There are already brown Americans who talk funny.

          Its about Americans of all colors, races, and creeds deciding for themselves who gets to enter the our proud nation. Not non-Americans deciding for us.

          1. Its about Americans of all colors, races, and creeds deciding for themselves who gets to enter the our proud nation.

            And by that you mean only those who agree with you. Fuck everyone else.

            1. We’re a Constitutional Democratic Republic and want to remain that way. Most people of the World don’t want that and certainly don’t want to fight for that.

              So fuck everyone else.

            2. Its about Americans of all colors, races, and creeds deciding for themselves who gets to enter the our proud nation.

              And by that you mean only those who agree with you. Fuck everyone else.

              Then why didn’t he say it?

              And what’s wrong with wanting people to agree with you? YOU certainly seem to prefer those who agree with you, so what’s the problem?

              That’s how this whole thing works without being plunged into periodic civil wars over policies. Isn’t this better than killing the people you don’t agree with?

            3. Sarcastic wants to decide for us, because he has such strong feelings. Those feelings should outweigh, the constitution, which really just get sin his way.

      2. When you’re Troll in Chief, everything looks like Twitter.

        1. What’s twitter?

        2. Is Twitter like Twatter but with no chicks?

  8. “By its plain language,” the chief justice wrote, federal immigration law “grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings?following a worldwide, multi-agency review?that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest.”

    Anybody who really cares about this in the media or Congress take heed. The heart of the issue isn’t that Trump issued a travel ban. The issue is that Congress gave the Executive broad authority in the first place in the interest of National Security.

    If you’re outraged about this and NOT calling for Congress to rescind that authority, then you’re only outraged because it’s team red’s turn to lead for a while.

    1. Entirely excellent point.

    2. I am not outraged by it and was never outraged when Clinton and Obama exercised these sorts of powers

      1. You’re ok with the President (no matter who he is) having broad authority over creating immigration policy in the interest of National Security? Do you respect the separation of powers in our Constitution only when it fits your agenda?

        Everyone should be concerned with the amount of power in general that the Executive has amassed through Congressional deference. This isn’t what the founders intended, and anyone who is for limited government should be concerned, if not outraged.

        1. I’m less worried about what Congress chooses to defer to POTUS and more worried about what devolves into the hands of an unelected – and clearly unaccountable – Federal bureaucracy.

          1. The Founders were (rightfully so) worried about the tyranny of the Presidency if he became like a king. I’m not saying that we’re there yet, but Congress granting broad deference to the POTUS to create laws in the interest of national security is certainly a big step in that direction. After all, when you’re involved in perpetual wars, everything becomes a national security issue.

            Congress (the people’s voice) ceding power to POTUS dilutes the representation of every person in our Republic. If that’s not an affront to the ideas of limited, representative government then I don’t know what is.

            You’re right to be concerned about the bureaucracy but you’re wrong to not be worried about the POTUS

            1. I’m less worried about POTUS because Congress has the obvious remedies of revising the law or, in extremis, impeachment. Both of which can effectively restrict POTUS’ future acts.

              We still have not figured out how to rein in the bureaucracy.

              1. And your “wrong to not be worried” is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.

            2. He didn’t create a law. Unlike the laws, this would be amazingly easy to reverse by simply changing the president.

              Laws are not like that.

              1. But the effect is still the same, no?

            3. The more time you open border people spend on constitutional authority of the president keeping some immigrants out of the USA, the less time we all have to fight the real threat- unconstitutional domestic spying without warrants.

              1. I honestly don’t care about this specific ruling. I think SCOTUS did interpret this correctly. I’m more worried that Congress continues to cede it’s authority to the President. IF you believe that Congress has the authority to regulate immigration, it would at least be best if Congress were to exercise that authority rather than just cede it blindly to the President.

                1. I hesitate to call that a distinction without a difference, but it’s in the ballpark.

                  Even if Congress were to pass the most specific, limited, and stringent legislation – on pretty much any topic – it still falls to the Executive for enforcement. At which point all manner of shenanigans can ensue, and it still ultimately falls upon Congress to rein in any perceived Executive excess, either through legislative tweaks, or impeachment.

                  1. As ThomasD points out, any actual overreach by the president can be dealt with via impeachment.

                    IMO, the courts have been asking for mass impeachment for decades. The courts have very limited power compared to the other branches and they shrink away from that important power constantly. The power to declare legislation unconstitutional.

                2. Congress and the president are supposed to have immense power within the limits of the Constitution. Especially relating to foreign relations.

                  Domestically, these two branches were purposely limited because of the threat that our own American government posses to Americans.

                  150 years or so of increased government power will takes decades to roll back. The Civil war really got America into the business of big government. We can still fix it with blood, sweat, and lefty tears.

                3. Congress is certainly far too lazy and cowardly to do their job.

            4. Potus doesn not create laws; he carries out the laws established by Congress.

              You may be pleased with some of recent Gorsuch decisions where he made surprised rulings, feeling that Congress has abrogated its responsibility through vagueness and latitude given to the executive branch. Gorsuch doesn’t like sloppy delegation.

        2. You’re ok with the President (no matter who he is) having broad authority over creating immigration policy in the interest of National Security? Do you respect the separation of powers in our Constitution only when it fits your agenda?

          Why wouldn’t I be? Determining which individual or groups are sufficiently vetted in order to enter the US is primarily an executive branch function.

          Everyone should be concerned with the amount of power in general that the Executive has amassed through Congressional deference.

          In general, I agree. When it comes to vetting immigrants and visitors, however, I think the executive branch is the proper place, and the main problem is that they aren’t restrictive enough and don’t enforce enough.

        3. Yes I am. If Congress doesn’t like it, they can always overrule him. And events happen so fast it is too much to expect Congress to change the law in response to every emergency.

    3. Why would I be outraged by this? It only applies to the particular matter of alien exclusion. Aliens outside the US do not have any rights under the constitution that the US need respect.

  9. If national security is all the government has to argue in order to justify policy, then none of our liberties are safe.

    1. National security on the borders?

      Not worried as its an enumerated power of Congress and the President to execute laws relating to regulation of immigrants. As an American, I don’t have a problem at our borders.

      I do get hassled at other country’s borders upon request for entry and that seems reasonable.

      1. As an older couple traveling with a young child, with her own passport, you bet we were given the once, twice and three times over look from Border Patrol. They were looking out for “adopted” or trafficked kids.

        Lots of folks who are looking to “adopt,” head oversea to countries where fake birth certificates are available for a song. Brazil is particularly popular.

        If kids are dept save, I’m okay with a 20 minute screening.

    2. Can’t tell of you were too lazy to read the federal briefs or the number of words hurt your head. They give more of a justification than “because national security.”

    3. If the government cannot change policy based on threats to our national security, than we will be destroyed as a country.

    4. Except the court did not make any such ruling or even come close to it.

  10. If a progs head explodes in a forest does it make a sound?

    1. We really only object to the fact that this was the policy result of Trump’s goal for “a total and complete ban on Muslims entering the United States,” which if you ask me is a violation of his oath of office and grounds for removal. Also the fact that it’s ineffective as national security policy. Meaning, like everything else he does, it’s red meat for his bigoted fan club. Of course SCOTUS is too busy going to the opera to notice what the unwashed and their orange ringmaster are up to.

      1. Lol.

        A) No it’s not grounds for removal.
        B) Of course it’s a soap opera. Your side lost.

        Maybe you can start a Change.org petition demanding the elimination of the Supreme Court.

      2. You’re in fine Tony-form today.

        A cent’anni!

      3. So a ban on open entry from specific countries, not specific religions, due to their poor security procedures, that even initially only covered 8% of the world Muslim population and when three of those countries improved their security procedures were removed from the list of countries, equals a “ban on all Muslims entering the country” in your mind?

        This is why it is called Trump Derangment Syndrome.

        1. It’s just that it was incredibly obvious that this was meant as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering. They tacked on a few non-Muslims countries to make it seem as if they’d sufficiently dealt with the obviously unconstitutional motivation behind the policy. Or maybe we finally figured out what the hell was going on.

          Won’t you be just a little relieved when we don’t have a president making almost every policy decision about protecting us from this or that brown menace?

          1. “It’s just that it was incredibly obvious that this was meant as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering.”

            Despite it not doing so? That’s quite a fantasy world you live in.

          2. You simply just proved my point (again) about TDS’rs. You simply cannot be rational.

            What are you up to this afternoon, OOI? Going to go dump a dead animal on some Republican’s front porch?

          3. Is there an antidote for TDS?

            Is it a virus? Venom?

            1. Lead. Hot lead.

            2. Woodchippers also work. So I have been told.

          4. It’s just that it was incredibly obvious that this was meant as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering.

            Right, it was totally obvious he was trying to prevent all Muslims from entering the country by failing to include countries where 92% of the world’s Muslims live in the executive order.

            1. Well, we’ve been told again and again that Trump is incompetent (as well as evil, of course). This just proves it.

        2. It is like when Obama tacked on some piddling tax cuts to his 2009 stimulus plan. He didn’t do it because Obama is a huge fan of tax cuts. He did it to placate the rubes and to give his tribal defenders talking points along the lines of “see? see? he isn’t some insane socialist after all, look, he’s proposing *tax cuts* that Republicans should be happy about! Yet they are still outraged, it’s just Obama Derangement Syndrome!” But the tax cuts were just fig leafs to provide cover for his real agenda, to provide vast sums of government money to his political allies, unions and blue state political machines.

          It’s the same deal here. Trump tacks on some window-dressing stuff about “improved vetting” and adding a few non-Muslim countries that *everyone agrees* are problem countries ANYWAY, regardless of what Trump says, only to provide a fig leaf of respectability to his core desire to ban Muslims. And his core defenders know this, and play along with the fiction, because *they too* want a ban on Muslims just like what Trump proposed during the campaign.

          1. Except that MOST.

            MOST

            Let me say that again–MOST majority Muslim countries were not subject to the ban.

            MOST.

            So your premise falls apart before it ever gets out of your maggot ridden brain.

            boom.

          2. It is like when Obama tacked on some piddling tax cuts to his 2009 stimulus plan.

            Not remotely.

            1. You’re not arguing that the stimulus was unconstitutional because of the lack of sincere tax cuts, so the stakes are completely incomparable. The bar for a law being shitty is much lower than the bar for it being unconstitutional.
            2. Obama’s stimulus plan actually did “provide vast sums of government money to his political allies, unions and blue state political machines.” Trump’s travel ban could not possibly accomplish a ban on Muslims, so claiming that was his true intent is ridiculous.

      4. Tpmy, everuthingyou jist said is wrong. I think you might even k ow that. You’re certainly consciously dishonest enough to not care.

  11. A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump’s executive proclamation banning travelers from certain largely majority-Muslim countries.

    You mean like North Korea and Venezuela? Why not just list the countries? Was Saudi Arabia included?
    The travel ban may be bad policy, but calling it a religious ban is just bad reporting.

    1. Agreed. The “Muslim Ban” meme is intentionally a lie.

      1. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

        –Donald J. Trump

        He is a liar, though. A big fat one.

        1. Was that a Tweet? Because SCOTUS, as I understand it, can only look at the EO.

          1. And that wasn’t in the EO.

            Two different things.

          2. I think they can look at whatever they say they can look at.

            1. Tony, thinking is not your strong suit. Which is probably why you’re attracted to progressivism. Your democrat overlords don’t want you thinking for yourself.

          3. They can look at private emails from a state agency, but they can’t look at public statements by the President. Seems consistent.

        2. This position changed by September of 16 idiot. He tempered it down to going after terrorists, or a security message.

        3. There are about 47 majority Muslim Countries.

          Only six were on the list, and they were highly disfunctional, with no government to aid in vetting US visa applications.

          Your logic does not hold.

        4. It’s cute you think Presidential candidates can be relied on to tell the truth. Unbelievably naive, but cute.

    2. I would like to know the stats of immigrants from other Muslim countries (or those with large Muslim populations) coming in during the ban that are NOT on the list.

      That would lay to rest, I reckon, the lie about the ‘Muslim ban’ being a total ban on all Muslims in Muslim countries.

      1. Any “Muslim Ban” which does not include Indonesia is not a Muslim Ban at all.

        1. Exactly.

        2. What is the purpose of this ban? Outside of what are left of them in Iraq and Syria the only place ISIS has been active lately are Indonesia and France.

          Where is Saudi Arabia, did we forget 9/11?

          This is Trump putting up a couple miles of chicken wire and telling people that his “big beautiful wall” is here. The sad part is his supporters will call it a victory.

          The only thing this does is make life miserable for a bunch of innocent people. This has nothing to do with terrorism or security. Venezuela, how would banning anyone trying to escape that socialist hell hole help national security?

          It is not a Muslim ban just a pointless futile ban.

          1. The moratorium has nothing to do with ideology.

            To issue a visa, the state department has to work with local authorities to verify the identity and character of the individual applying. Each country on the list has no internal administrative function or data available from which to vet the application.

            If there is no function government, or the government refuses to participate, vetting of visas is not possible.

            1. I’m not sure why so many people have a hard time understanding that. Especially after having gone through 9/11.

  12. Writing in dissent, [Breyer and Kagan] argued that the Court should not have decided the case until it had the opportunity to hear additional arguments about the real-world implementation of the travel ban

    “Real-world implementation”? What does that have to do with The Law?

    Oh, wait …. Is this a veiled threat to dismantle the IRS?

    1. There are appeals and exceptions set up to satisfy Constitutional Requirements set by the court. Reports are that the appeals and exceptions process is not being followed, thereby imperiling its constitutional validity.

      1. Then the people who are not getting their appeals and exceptions handled properly can sue in the courts, just like Trump had to. The idea that an executive order can be stayed because it’s possible that someone might have a problem with it in the future is complete hogwash.

  13. Still not tired of winning…

    1. I did not build enough tear barrels last week for all these lefty tears.

      The barrels that I did build filled up rather fast with lefty tears from the no bakey a gay cakey case.

      1. If the government can’t hold a gun to Christian baker’s heads to force them to bake gay cakes, there will BE no gay cakes!

  14. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, charged the majority with turning a blind eye to the president’s blatant Establishment Clause violation. The Court “leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns,” Sotomayor wrote.

    Using campaign statements to divine the intent behind policies implemented a year later is absurd. And intent shouldn’t really matter anyway; the question is whether there is a rational, non-discriminatory basis behind the policy, and there clearly is.

  15. Additionally, Thomas’ smack down of national injunctions issued by federal district courts.

  16. “” ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns,” Sotomayor wrote. “”

    I expected better of Sotomayor. There is zero evidence of it being a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”

    Trumps action allowed for muslims from other counties to enter. I expect trolls and partisan hacks not to see the difference. But I expect better from a judge at any level.

    1. It appears you misinterpreted the quote. She liberally used the quote from Trump of a “total and complete shutdown” to emphasize the stated intent. She never claimed that she thought the enacted policy led to a “total and complete shutdown”.

      1. Yeah, but the problem is that she’s claiming Trump’s ulterior motive for a policy that could not possibly keep out all Muslims was to keep out all Muslims.

        It’s like saying that a property owner’s intent in erecting a four foot high fence around his property was to keep out birds.

  17. Thomas’s concurrence calls out the Circuit Courts for their willingness to issue injunctions. He suggests that its time for SCOTUS to review, and possibly slap down, this potentially unlawful authority.

    I know Thomas likes to put his wish list items all the time. I wonder if someone will take the bait here and sue the District Court next time they issue such an injunction.

    1. Because of this injunction, some banned people were admitted entry into the USA. Taxpayer money now has to be spent to track them down and set them up for deportation.

      1. Are you saying that the EO has a specific enforcement mechanism for the instance of this injunction? Or do you mean that ICE and other relevant agencies will be doing normal day to day operations?

  18. This case was in trouble from the very beginning. I would need google to help me remember more than a handful of executive orders that the judiciary has struck down.

    1. They were just trying to run out the clock until Trump was impeached and run out of office for one imaginary reason or another.

  19. So SCOTUS ruled that the president was exercising his delegated authority within bounds as hardly anyone actually argued against. The lower court judges who were reversed put their politics above a fair interpretation of the law and have wasted everyone’s time and money fighting this policy by ethically questionable means. They are arguably in violation of their oaths of office iby abusing their authority so blatantly to advance a political cause.

    1. They burned a year of Trumps presidency, which is not the same as getting somebody un-elected, but is the next best thing where the progs are concerned. And who knew… Laura Bush lined up this month to join their chorus, confirming we do not have a two party system at present [in congress] but a Cocktail Party. Trump has to be very careful who he endorses, as the bulk of people recommending are working to slow walk his presidency into the dustbin.
      When the first “ruling” came out of Washington state, I was floored: a court took existing statute where congress gave the president plenary power in situations where immigration and national security intersected and… gifted itself the same power [else it couldn’t have issued an order]. The breach of separation of powers reached into both legislative and executive: legislative by changing the plain meaning of statute, and executive by seizing power from the beneficiary named by congress [the president]. This congress may be the absolute worst of my lifetime – they should give up, gavel out, and go home since they won’t stand up for separation of powers. The most useless goons on the planet…

      1. This just goes to show that anyone interested in separation of powers and avoided concentrating power in one party needs to vote Republican, at least for now.

  20. Ugh. Another 5-4 squeaker. It’s hard to believe people are still fixated on the propaganda mirage of this Trump security action being “anti-muslim”. The problem in the banned countries was… there is virtually no government, even anarchy in places like Somalia. In such an environment, people are who they pay they are, and vetting entry properly is nearly impossible. The problems in the visa lottery program are a prime example: people submitting multiple applications using different names in some of the countries affected.

    1. The Left wants to kill us in any way it can. Importing murder is a great way to do it and they have a long history of creating lies about their actions to get votes from the useful idiots who elect them.

    2. North Korea and Venezuela also don’t have many Muslims.

  21. I will presume that since Trump had issued this executive order there have been no issuances of visas to nationals of these countries. As an American user of a foreign country’s visa, I can understand why it is important to allow folks (absent any actionable new information) given a visa entry.

  22. Today as well SCOTUS ended the absurdity of EPA being able to redraw reservation boundary, to grab back lands which Rez residents signed away in 1904. The moccasin is finally off of the neck of the 12,000 non-natives who were about to be taxed and disenfranchised by “leaders” on a reservation deemed to be one of the most violent and drug wrecked in the nation.

  23. I find it just really bizarre that campaign rhetoric can be used by the SCOTUS as an official excuse to undermine the actions of a sitting President post-election.

  24. Excellent! This was never a “religion” ban as the left like to falsely portray it and their useful fools promote it.

    1. Even if religion was a motivation to some degree, so what? The actual E.O., which is what matters, said nothing about religion.

  25. The problem with a “rational basis” review is the rationality of those basing the review.

  26. It’s not so much that they care about Muslims, but they need to call Trump a racist so we can throw him out.

    That’s the real issue.

    1. Going back as far as I can remember, every GOP nominee for president (and maybe every office), automatically gets labeled as racist, stupid, and misogynistic. Oh, yeah, and they hate the poor too. They never even bother to look at the person as a fully formed human being. They’re Republican.

  27. According to Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, the power over immigration (aliens), and refugees (asylum), was not delegated to the Federal Government.

    “Alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June 1798, entitled “An Act concerning Aliens,” which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.” -Kentucky Resolutions

    “That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the late two cases of the ‘Alien and Sedition Acts’ passed at the last session of Congress, the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the Federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial to those of the executive, subverts the general principles of free government, as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution…”
    -Virginia Resolutions.

    1. Yeah, well if we’re going to start nullifying every law that isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution I’m all for that! I’d trade letting California have as many illegal immigrants as they want, so long as the other 95% of the federal government that is unconstitutional is abolished.

      ALSO, keep in mind this means that states like Texas and Arizona could in fact start booting out every single illegal at will without worrying about any bullshit bleeding hearts in the FedGov stopping them. AND THEY WOULD. This too I am okay with.

      But until any of that happens, I’m going to roll with the fact that the FedGov and POTUS has the power to deal with illegal immigrants as the law allows and as the pres decides to implement.

  28. As if this ruling was ever in doubt. I’m getting pretty tired of activist judges completely ignoring the law as written, and as easily interpreted, simply because they don’t like what the law says. That is NOT a judges job. They’re simply to enforce statutes as written when it’s clear cut. Congress has to rewrite laws, not judges.

    Not tired of all the winning yet, but I am a little warm and fuzzy inside because of all the pain progressives are feeling 🙂

  29. The 8 best gaming modem router combo the8best

  30. Frp Bypass apk RootJunky apkandroidhub

  31. irulu expro x1 firmware download gofirmware

  32. root advan m4 http://bestandroidtoroot.com/p…..4-advan-m4

  33. huawei mya l13 root bestandroidtoroot

  34. the 8 best router for money http://the8best.com/best/the-8…..-the-money

  35. htc d820f firmware gofirmware

  36. top 10 drivers for pc on windows 8 1 7 xp vista and mac computer bestdriversforpc

  37. how to root gionee gn5001s bestandroidtoroot

  38. the 8 best cable modem for gaming http://the8best.com/best/the-8…..for-gaming

  39. como rootear un hisense u963 bestandroidtoroot

  40. the 8 best tv antenna guy reviewtvantennas

  41. review air purifier nispira replacement hepa filter compatible http://airpurifiers-review.com…..compatible

  42. the 8 best hepa air purifiers airpurifiers-review

  43. internet speed hack android root howtoandroitroot

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.