Court upholds travel ban. But does it make us safer?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a significant power of the presidency: the ability to ban whole populations from entering the United States based on country of origin — in this case, five predominantly Muslim nations.
But the 5-4 ruling doesn’t absolve President Donald Trump from a responsibility to use this power judiciously and humanely going forward.
Unfortunately, there’s scant evidence that he’ll do so. The travel ban, certainly in its early incarnations, was the fevered product of religious bigotry spewed by Trump the candidate, who called during his campaign for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
After lower courts struck down the first two versions, the last of three iterations — call it Travel Ban 3.0 — was cleansed of any religious reference and cosmetically altered to include two non-Muslim countries (Venezuela, from which only senior officials are banned, and North Korea, from which travel to America is almost nonexistent).
A narrow majority of justices deemed the third ban neutral enough to pass anti-religious bias and to be a legitimate way to address national security concerns.
Even if the ban falls “squarely within the scope of presidential authority,” as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, does it really keep the nation safer?
That’s a difficult case to make. Muslims around the world, already disturbed about Trump’s anti-Islamic rhetoric, will hardly be assuaged by the Supreme Court’s fine distinctions.
The list of nations is arbitrary. No terrorists from the predominantly Muslim countries included in Version 3.0 — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — have killed Americans in a domestic terror attack.
Meanwhile, none of the countries of origin for the Sept. 11 attackers — Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates — is included in the ban. And, in recent years, the greater terror threat facing the United States has been homegrown.
Not only is the travel ban a dubious national security tool, it is also not be- ing applied humanely.
If national security is the true goal, exemptions and waivers written into the ban should allow entry to carefully vetted children, spouses, students, refugees and other “persons, perhaps in the thousands,” Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent.
But that hasn’t been happening. Only tiny rates of exemptions and waivers are granted. A 11-year-old Yemeni girl with cerebral palsy was denied entry until her case was publicized. She probably would have died without treatment in America.
One consular official testified that he and others in his office were allowed no discretion to grant waivers, despite the ban’s stated policy. A respected American internist who emigrated from Yemen saw his wife, who has a heart condition, barred from joining him until the news media covered their case. When thousands of U.S. citizens are denied the chance to visit close relatives, that engenders real emotional pain.
After a lengthy legal battle, the highest court in the land has confirmed that Trump had the authority to impose a travel ban. No doubt he’ll be tempted to push the limits, but the wise policy would be to declare victory and ditch it.