Court upholds Muslim ban
A sharply divided Supreme Court upholds President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims.
WASHINGTON – A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s immigration travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries Tuesday as a legitimate exercise of executive branch authority.
The 5-4 ruling reverses a series of lower-court decisions that had struck down the ban as illegal or unconstitutional. It hands a victory to Trump, who initiated the battle to ban travelers a week after assuming office last year. It was a defeat for Hawaii and other states that had challenged the action, as well as immigrant rights groups.
Trump called the ruling a “tremendous victory” after first tweeting seven simple words: “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!”
“In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country,” he said in a statement. “This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”
The president had vowed to ban Muslims during the 2016 presidential campaign and continued his attacks on Twitter after his election. But the high court said those statements did not constitute evidence of religious discrimination.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued the opinion, supported by the court’s other four conservatives — a majority that has won a dozen 5-4 cases this term. He said entry restrictions were limited to countries previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.
“The proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential authority,” the chief justice said. He added that claims of religious bias did not hold up against “a sufficient national security justification.”
However, he said, “We express no view on the soundness of the policy.” Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, referred obliquely to the potential relevance of Trump’s statements about religion.
“An anxious world must know that our government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts,” he said.
The court’s four liberal justices dissented, with Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor reading from the dissents in court, a rare occurrence. Breyer found “evidence of anti-religious bias” and was joined by Justice Elena Kagan, but Sotomayor spoke emotionally.
Quoting extensively Trump’s words during and after the 2016 campaign, Sotomayor wrote: “A reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” She was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“What began as a policy explicitly ‘calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ has since morphed into a ‘proclamation’ putatively based on national-security concerns,” Sotomayor said. “But this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact: the words of the president and his advisers create the strong perception that the proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers.”