Confusion reigns supreme

The Supreme Court has muddled the travel ban debate, writes the USA Today in this editorial.

THE Supreme Court has only added confusion to President Donald Trump’s stubborn and — until now — futile effort to temporarily bar visitors from certain Muslimmajority countries. The justices partially resuscitated Mr Trump’s plans to ban visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and gave both sides plenty to crow about.

Americans hoping for some guidance from the high court on whether Mr Trump’s action was in reality a Muslim ban, something he promised voters he would deliver once elected, were left scratching their heads.

Two federal appeals court had taken Mr Trump at his word during his campaign rallies and halted the ban, one on grounds that it violated immigration law, and the other that it violated the Constitution. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said in the context of Mr Trump’s heated rhetoric toward Muslims, his travelban executive order ‘‘drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.’’

But the Supreme Court ignored that particular elephant in the room and split the difference. Pending a full hearing in the northern autumn on the merits of Mr Trump’s order, his 90day ban on visitors from the six countries and his 120day ban on all refugees was allowed to proceed — but not for visitors or refugees who have a ‘‘a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.’’

Baffled? So is everyone else. The White House called it a ‘‘clear victory.’’ Civil rights lawyers for immigrants and their families, however, said it would impact a small number of people seeking entry to the United States.

‘‘I fear the court’s remedy will prove unworkable,’’ Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a partial dissent, adding it will ‘‘invite a flood of litigation.’’

He’s probably right.

The whole enterprise has been a mess right from the start. The first version of the president’s travel ban, issued in January, was so deeply flawed it had to be rewritten. Even as White House lawyers argued for the legitimacy of the newer version, Mr Trump tweeted that it was only a ‘‘watered down, politically correct’’ variation of the original.

And it was arbitrary. Since before 9/11, no terrorist from any of the six countries has launched a fatal attack against the United States. The Department of Homeland Security’s own internal reviews find that immigrants from those countries pose no unique threat. Moreover, attacks in America are increasingly from among the nativeborn.

Presidents usually have wide discretion when it comes to immigration restrictions. But Mr Trump’s own rhetoric about Muslims got him in trouble with the appeals courts. By the time the Supreme Court hears the case in full in the autumn and issues a ruling months later, the 90day ban on visitors and

120day ban on refugees will probably have ended. The debate over whether Mr Trump acted illegally and violated First Amendment safeguards against religious discrimination could be moot.

However, Mr Trump’s executive order made room for him to extend his ban. A misguided policy may finally have its day of reckoning. — USA Today