High court ruling shows travel ban isn’t extreme

ONE doesn’t have to agree with President Trump’s decision to restrict U.S. entry of natives of eight mostly Muslim-majority countries to be glad the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld his authority to do so. Any president, not just Trump, should have the ability to address perceived security threats.

In September 2017, Trump issued a proclamation restricting the ability of citizens from Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen to travel to the United States. Those countries were targeted because they failed to ensure travel-document integrity and were lax in disclosing information on the criminal history or suspected terrorist ties of their citizens. Most notably, countries placed on the list had a significant terrorist presence.

Trump’s travel order exempted lawful permanent residents and provided for case-by-case waivers.

The travel restrictions got the attention of officials in Iraq, Sudan and Chad, which subsequently improved their vetting procedures and were removed from the list.

While the federal Immigration and Nationality Act allows the president to restrict entry of foreigners whose presence “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” opponents argued the ban violated another provision of the law that said no person can be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” Opponents also said the ban, in effect, was a “religious gerrymander” that unconstitutionally targeted Muslims, citing comments made by Trump or other administration officials.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with critics’ arguments, but in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court disagreed and overturned the lower court’s injunction.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the “plain language” of federal 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.”

The court noted Trump’s 12-page proclamation was “more detailed than any prior order a President has issued” under the federal law. A similar 1996 proclamation by President Bill Clinton, which barred the entry of members of the Sudanese government and armed forces into the United States, was limited to a single sentence.

As for alleged anti-Muslim bias, the justices noted Trump’s proclamation “covers just 8 percent of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.” Roberts wrote, “because there is persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility, we must accept that independent justification.”

The court’s ruling prompted outcry from some groups, including Oklahoma Muslim leaders. Those critics can reasonably debate whether Trump’s travel restrictions are the best way to thwart terrorist entry into the U.S. But the court made clear that this order isn’t an outlier from Trump’s predecessors in its effect, but instead in its thoroughness and careful construction.