On Friday, the United States Supreme Court approved to hear Trump vs. Hawaii in April, evaluating the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s Travel Ban that banned individuals from mostly Muslim nations including Syria, North Korea, Chad, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia from immigrating to the United States.
Shortly after inauguration, Trump exercised his executive powers with the first version of the Travel Ban, receiving controversial responses including protests and lawsuits. While federal judges of the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts ruled in favor of Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington when they disputed the legislature, the Supreme Court issued the opposite, approving most of the ban when it was first heard in June 2017, then further approving the entirety of the ban in December.
During the hearings, it is believe that a majority of the arguments will center around unconstitutional discrimination and immigration laws. Under the Constitution, the right to pass and author immigration laws lies within Congress, limiting the president to solely enforcing such laws. However, proponents of the ban present their arguments using the 1952 provision that allows the president to “suspend the entry of.. Any class of aliens… for such period as he shall deem necessary.” In opposition, the prosecution stresses the 1965 provision that protects immigrants and citizens from being “discriminated against… because of the peron’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The Supreme Court must make decision that lies heavily between securing the nation from potential threats, and protecting immigrants from discrimination, ensuring that the Trump administration does not violate their first amendment right to religion.
In my opinion, Trump's utilization of the 1952 provision isn't justifiable because an indefinite ban suggests a long term "solution" that is no longer temporary or responsive to an emergency, since he plans to deny them entry forever. Trump's policies have honed in on border and national security, but I think the Supreme Court need to draw a line, asserting that civil liberties and rights granted by the Constitution should not be denied to immigrants, especially when the ban doesn't serve its purpose of protecting the United States from foreign threats. Preventing people from entering the nation does not stop the war on terrorism. In fact I believe it is counterintuitive in that it only angers and riles up nations, causing them and their allies to become hesitant to work and cooperate with the United States. Furthermore, the advances in technology have complicated the combat against terrorism, while domestic terrorism is also a HUGE issue the Trump administration has failed to address.
In my opinion, Trump's utilization of the 1952 provision isn't justifiable because an indefinite ban suggests a long term "solution" that is no longer temporary or responsive to an emergency, since he plans to deny them entry forever. Trump's policies have honed in on border and national security, but I think the Supreme Court need to draw a line, asserting that civil liberties and rights granted by the Constitution should not be denied to immigrants, especially when the ban doesn't serve its purpose of protecting the United States from foreign threats. Preventing people from entering the nation does not stop the war on terrorism. In fact I believe it is counterintuitive in that it only angers and riles up nations, causing them and their allies to become hesitant to work and cooperate with the United States. Furthermore, the advances in technology have complicated the combat against terrorism, while domestic terrorism is also a HUGE issue the Trump administration has failed to address.
Questions:
- Trump’s lawyer justify the ban using the 1952 provision which gives the president unchecked power during times of national crisis and emergencies, but the travel ban denies entry from 8 countries indefinitely. Do you think the defence’s argument is still justified? Can the 1952 provision be applied here?
- Is the Travel Ban more prejudicial than probative?
- While Trump’s earlier versions were shot down by 2 major appellate courts, the Supreme Court’s ruling preceded. If a majority of the appellate courts are in accordance with a decision, yet the Supreme Court rules differently, should the Supreme Court’s ruling still be held superior?
- Who do you think the Roberts Court will rule in favor of? Why?
Sources:
- http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-court-trump-travelban-20180119-story.html
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-agrees-to-decide-legality-of-current-trump-travel-ban-1516389203
1 comment:
This case is very interesting because both sides are drawing on different parts of history to justify their position. I think that the main thing the court will be focusing on is defining if we are in a time of crisis or emergency when banning the entry of aliens would be legal. The travel ban does directly contradict with the 1965 provision because it is discriminating against a group of people because of their "place of birth or residence." I personally think that the court will rule in favor of Hawaii because at the moment, the United States is not in a state of emergency and usually, these discriminatory laws are only allowed during wartime. And to address Shweta's question about whether the Supreme Court's decision should be held superior if it conflicts with the majority of appellate courts I say duh. America is not a democracy of courts. The court system does not run on the policy of majority rule and the Supreme Court is the boss. You can't just do the opposite of what the boss says because you feel like it's unfair or something.
Post a Comment