Presidential power gets key win if travel ban OK’d
Limiting the president’s purview over national security presents a slippery slope whose effects impact not only the present holder of that office but also future presidents’ ability to protect this country from perceived threats.
That, according to published reports, seemed to be the consensus after arguments before the Supreme Court last Wednesday on the constitutionality of President Trump’s travel ban affecting the Muslim-majority countries of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as North Korea and Venezuela.
While reading into justices’ questions can often lead to erroneous conclusions, the scope of those queries would suggest the majority of the High Court will side with the Trump administration’s contention that this ban seeks to address a valid national security concern and so represents a reasonable exercise of executive power.
The court already showed its hand when justices allowed the travel ban to take effect temporarily in December by a 7-2 vote, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor opposed.
While the justices’ decision probably won’t be known until sometime in June, an affirmation of that ban would be a stunning reversal of lower court rulings, which stymied Trump’s efforts by determining it discriminated against people of a certain nationality or religion, since it primarily pertained to Muslim countries.
Those previous decisions also took into consideration the polarizing anti-Muslim rhetoric Trump espoused on the campaign trail when he was candidate Trump. While the High Court acknowledged Trump’s behavior, it appeared willing to separate the candidate from the office of president, which historically has exercised wide latitude on issues of national security.
Despite its ideological differences, the Supreme Court justices’ ability to dispassionately probe the merits of arguments for and against the ban — made by Solicitor General Noel Francisco and lawyer Neal Katyal respectively — present a stark contrast to the politically biased lens through which most debate occurs in Congress.
On Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually a swing vote on the court, sharply questioned Katyal and Francisco over concerns that individuals who felt discriminated against had a legal recourse to seek an exemption from the order, rather than any serious issue with the ban itself.
Francisco dismissed the contention that the countries included in this order amount to a Muslim ban, since the vast majority of Muslim-majority nations and their citizens retain the ability to visit the United States or legally establish residence here.
In effect, Trump and his national-security team simply went where the evidence took them in formulating this travel ban.
Trump, thanks to the rationality of the court, appears headed for a major legal victory that also protects the ability of his presidential successors to safeguard national security interests.