The U.S. Supreme Court raised far more questions than it answered Monday in its partial affirmation of presidential powers to ban immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries. There was never any question that the president, whether it’s Donald Trump or someone
The U.S. Supreme Court raised far more questions than it answered Monday in its partial affirmation of presidential powers to ban immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries. There was never any question that the president, whether it’s Donald Trump or someone else, should have the power to impose restrictions when there’s an identifiable threat to national security.
The question was whether Trump’s ban was designed specifically to keep Muslims out of the country because of their religion. The Supreme Court notably avoided answering that question, which was the focus of multiple lower-court rulings blocking Trump’s ban.
The justices will hear the full case this fall. Trump’s repeated tweets and campaign statements calling specifically to ban Muslims helped undermine his own claim that this is not a religious ban.
It’s no small coincidence that on the same day as this temporary ruling was announced, the Supreme Court also ruled in the case involving a Lutheran church playground in Columbia, Mo., stating unequivocally that discrimination on the basis of religious identity is unconstitutional. Discrimination by identity applies whether it’s a playground or an airport immigration control booth.
Monday’s ruling was remarkable in that two conservative justices sided with four liberals in deciding to continue limiting the president’s ban authority. Immigrants with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” remain eligible for entry, the court ruled, defining four broad categories of who qualifies. The three conservatives in the minority appeared to favor letting Trump impose the ban without restraint.
Trump somehow interpreted this as a resounding victory. “Very grateful for the 9-0 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!” he tweeted. Justices didn’t agree 9-0, only per curiam, or in the name of the court, to hear the full case while modifying the existing ban.
The court’s “bona fide” categories are bizarre in terms of their national security implications. They fail to establish any clear linkage between previous domestic terrorist attacks and immigrants who entered the country without such bona fide relationships here.
If anything, it’s the opposite: The 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, the 2015 attack in San Bernardino, Calif., and last year’s shootings at a gay nightclub in Orlando — along with the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings — all involved immigrants with strong familial, educational and employment ties here. And none involved immigrants from the six nations on Trump’s list.
Trump is now beyond the 90 days outlined in his revised ban in March to suspend immigration while the administration addressed security gaps. By the time arguments are presented in October, the reason for the ban will no longer exist. This case probably won’t alter the security picture one way or the other. But as a civil rights issue, the implications are enormous.
— St. Louis Post-Dispatch
