Protests as travel ban approved
A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries yesterday, the conservative majority taking his side in a major ruling supporting his presidential power. A dissenting liberal justice said the court was making a historic mistake by refusing to recognise the ban discriminates against Muslims.
The 5-4 decision was a big victory for Trump in the court’s first substantive ruling on one of his administration’s policies.
The ruling came on an issue that has been central for Trump, from his campaign outbursts against ‘‘radical Islamic terrorism’’ through his presi- dency. He tweeted a quick reaction – ‘‘Wow!’’ – and then celebrated at greater length before television cameras.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the five conservative justices, including Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch, who got his seat only after Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s nominee for the last 10 months of Obama’s term.
Roberts wrote that the travel ban was well within US presidents’ considerable authority over immigration and responsibility for keeping the nation safe. He rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias that rested in large part on Trump’s own tweets and statements over the past three years.
But Roberts was careful not to endorse either Trump’s statements about immigration in general or Muslims in particular, including his campaign call for ‘‘a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.’’
‘‘We express no view on the soundness of the policy,’’ Roberts wrote.
The travel ban has been fully in place since December, when the justices put the brakes on lower court rulings that had ruled the policy out of bounds and blocked part of it from being enforced. It applies even to people with close relatives in the United States and other strong connections to the country.
In a dissent she summarised aloud in court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, ‘‘History will not look kindly on the court’s misguided decision today, nor should it.’’ Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan also dissented.
Sotomayor wrote that based on the evidence in the case ‘‘a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.’’ She said her colleagues in the majority arrived at the opposite result by ‘‘ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.’’
She likened the case to the discredited Korematsu v US decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Roberts responded in his opinion that ‘‘Korematsu has nothing to do with this case’’ and ‘‘was gravely wrong the day it was decided.’’
The Trump policy applies to travellers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travellers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving ‘‘its identity-management and information sharing practices,’’ Trump said in a proclamation. –