53 Shares Reddit Email

The Supreme Court just threw out the arguments against the travel ban by the President of the United States that some lower courts have said was unconstitutional. Some have used ludicrous reasoning such as campaign statements as basis for their legal opinions and rulings. The Supreme Court just stated in the majority opinion that this was not admissible.

The court said “The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”

The court finds that the president is “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA.”

The majority opinion reads, “under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today tat plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.”

The lower court injunctions have been reversed and the case has been sent back for further evaluation by the lower courts.

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation. The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Read the ruling here:

Trump Travel Ban Supreme Court Decision