Supreme Court gives travel ban some support
Question of authority, relevance of campaign rhetoric considered
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump’s immigration travel ban a better reception Wednesday than it has received in lower courts over the past 15 months, raising the chances that it will uphold restrictions on travelers from five predominantly Muslim countries.
The court’s conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the administration’s contention that it has the authority to limit immigration in the name of national security. They also voiced skepticism about the relevance of Trump’s campaign promises and statements regarding Muslims.
“If you look at what was done, it does not look at all like a Muslim ban,” Justice Samuel Alito said, noting it applies to about 8 percent of the world’s Muslims.
The court’s outnumbered liberals expressed doubts about the president’s power to ban travelers indefinitely and said even his tweets can be used to decipher his motives.
“Where does a president get the authority to do more than Congress has already decided is adequate?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
Only Justice Anthony Kennedy among the court’s five conservatives sounded conflicted.
The four liberal justices peppered the government’s side with questions. Justice Stephen Breyer voiced concern mostly about the ability of travelers from the five countries to get waivers.
A final decision is expected at the end of June.
The legal battle began after Trump issued his first travel ban last January. That 90-day ban on travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen was struck down by federal district and appeals courts.
Trump’s second version, issued in March, dropped Iraq from the list. But it was struck down last spring before the Supreme Court in late June ruled that travelers without close ties to the U.S. could be barred while vetting procedures were reviewed.
After Trump issued his third version in September — subtracting Sudan, adding Chad, North Korea and officials of Venezuela — federal courts again struck it down. But in December, the justices allowed it to go into effect, and in January they scheduled it for oral arguments.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco urged the justices to take note of the third travel ban’s specificity, including different levels of restrictions and sixmonth reporting requirements. That elicited what appeared to be praise from Kennedy.
But Kennedy also joined the court’s more liberal justices in wondering how the president’s campaign statements against Muslims might infect his policies.