A divided Supreme Court upholds Trump's Muslim travel ban

The Supreme Court ruling on the Trump Muslim ban drew protests.

ASAM NEWS &
Views From the Edge

THE SUPREME COURT this morning (June 26) in a split 5-4 decision ruled President Trump’s travel ban against Muslims is constitutional.

This is the White House’s third attempt at a travel ban and the only one to be upheld.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the ban fell “squarely” within the president’s authority, reports CNBC It rejected claims the ban was based on religious bigotry or hostility.

Roberts concluded the White House showed a “sufficient national security justification,” but added “We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” according to Reuters.

Under the executive order, immigrants, refugees, and visa holders from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen are banned from entering the US.

The vote among the nine justices was along party lines, Roberts was joined by conservative Justices Sanuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Anthony Kennedy.

RELATED: SCOTUS repudiates infamous Korematsu ruling

In desent were the liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

In her scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “A reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was driven primarily by anti-Muslim animus, rather than by the Government’s asserted national-security justifications. Even before being sworn into office, then-candidate Trump stated that ‘Islam hates us.’”

The majority did not take into consideration Donald Trump's numerous anti-Muslim statements during his campaign and which he continues to make since he has taken office.

The conservative justices basically ruled that the Chief Executive has the authority to limit immigration without making a judgement on the "soundness of the policy."

"Today's ruling sits alongside other similarly shameful Supreme Court decisions allowing Japanese American internment and segregation,” said Lena Masri, National Litigation Director for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

"The Muslim community will join other advocates of civil rights to show the ban for what it is -- an illegal expression of anti-Muslim animosity," said CAIR Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas.

In a statement in reaction to today’s ruling, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

“This is a setback; not the end of the road. Today, the Supreme Court made it clear that the responsibility will continue to be on the American Muslim community and its allies to push for an end to the Muslim Ban.

“The Supreme Court's decision is an invitation to inject discrimination back into our immigration system. More than half a century ago, Congress abandoned a racist immigration system that preferred some races over others. This decision is an abandonment of that milestone.

“The Muslim Ban's bigotry should have been as clear to the Supreme Court as it is to the Muslims demonized by it. Apparently, everyone but the Supreme Court can see the decision for what it is: an expression of animosity.”

“This juncture in U.S. history is an ideological juncture–and it is one that has to contend with the histories of oppression that have marginalized and disenfranchised our communities for decades,” said Suman Raghunathan, Executive Director of South Asian Americans Leading Together, said to AsAmNews.

“We at SAALT choose and have always chosen, to build a nation where families are not torn apart, where children are not detained in cages, where differences are not criminalized for partisan gain. Today as hate separates families and places our communities at the cross hairs of hate, we vow to continue the fight for justice, dignity and full inclusion.”

“In affirming President Trump’s bigoted Muslim Ban, the Supreme Court has given a green light to religious discrimination and animus,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates. “Not since key decisions on slavery, segregation in schools, and Japanese American incarceration, have we seen a decision that so clearly fails to protect those most vulnerable to government-led discrimination.

Since the Muslim Ban was allowed to go into effect late last year, the administration has separated families and loved ones; and denied people opportunities to work, travel, study, seek medical care, and better our nation, simply because of what they believe and where they come from. This decision puts the basic rights of all Americans at risk.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-WA, released the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling to allow some provisions of the Muslim Ban to go into effect:

“The Supreme Court has failed to consider the anti-American, discriminatory nature of President Trump’s Muslim Ban – an executive order that remains, in my view, unconstitutional and deeply antithetical to our country’s moral values,” said Jayapal. “Major courts across the country have already rejected the Muslim Ban, recognizing it as a threat to constitutional protections. In allowing parts of the ban to take hold before considering the case, the Supreme Court has done a grave disservice to core American values.

“Today’s ruling will have consequences that stretch far and wide: undermining our national security and hurting our economy by restricting tourists, who may have no relationships here, from entering the country," said Jayapal.

“Let me be clear – this decision is not a victory for President Trump,” Jayapal added. “The Supreme Court has not given him the green light to unilaterally ban travelers to the United States. In fact, the court makes it clear that Trump cannot restrict many immigrants from seeking a better life in the U.S.”The American Civil Liberties Union strongly condemned today's ruling, responding on Twitter that "this is not the first time the Court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it."

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement that the court's "ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's great failures."

Lt. Gov. Doug Chin

 "Today is a dark day for our country," said Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-HI, She claimed the Supreme Court "handed the president unfettered power to continue to target minorities."

Hirono asked, "Is the president going to say that it's our national security to ban people from Canada? To ban people from Guatemala? From Honduras? Who's next?"

Lt. Gov. Doug Chin, who led Hawaii’s challenge against the travel ban when he served as attorney general, issued a statement to the Honolulu Star Advertiser saying, “I hurt today for Hawaii families and others who have experienced discrimination and scapegoating due to President Trump's bullying remarks and orders.”
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-CA, tweeted, "This decision from the Supreme Court upholds a policy that is an affront to our values. Trump's Muslim Ban is discriminatory and betrays our country’s history as a nation of immigrants."
“Today, our current vetting system is capable and successful at weeding out threats, which is why immigrants and refugees from these countries have not been terrorists or criminals, but instead have settled peacefully and are contributing to our communities," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA, who is chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. "Many of them fled war and violence only to find opportunity and peace here. That’s how our laws should work. But now, the Supreme Court has given license to Trump to continue labeling all Muslims as threats, denying them a chance at a better life, and encouraging xenophobia and isolating communities.

"We should not repeat racist and discriminatory policies based on national origin that are hauntingly similar to the treatment of the Asian American community at instructive times in our national history," said a statement from AAAJ. "From the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the unjust and inhumane incarceration of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, our country has an unfortunate history of prejudicial laws that threaten this nation's founding ideals."

15 states join Hawaii in fight to expand exemptions from Trump's travel ban

Hawaii's Attorney General Douglas Chin

HAWAII'S renewed effort to broaden the scope of exceptions to President Donald Trump's executive order on travel got a lot more support when 15 states and the District of Columbia added their voices to the fight. 

The 16 states are urging a federal judge in Honolulu to issue a ruling on Hawaii's claim that the Trump administration wrongly excluded grandparents and other relatives from the list of close family members who can still get visas to travel to the U.S. during the 90 days that the executive order is in force.

"The scope of the travel and refugee bans badly needs to be resolved and not just according to the Trump administration's interpretation," Chin said.

Hakim Ouansafi, president of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, said he respects Watson's ruling but thinks there will be more opportunities to ensure the ban does not exclude grandparents and others close family members.

"We will have people directly affected by this, for sure," Ouansafi said. "When you exclude that many people, the circle is much wider."

Federal appeals court Judge Derrick Kahala Watson dismissed Hawaii's first effort on Friday but indicated a way for the state to try again. 

Watson said it was not his role to interpret a Supreme Court ruling from last month that allowed Trump to proceed with his efforts to suspend visa issuance to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries and to halt refugees from around the globe. While the justices partially revived a policy that lower federal courts had stayed, the high court also gave foreigners with certain kinds of U.S. ties a reprieve from the limits—at least until the justices hear formal arguments on the issue in October.

Lawyers for Hawaii immediately drafted new papers and filed them the next day.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel returned the lawsuit to Watson after saying that the judge does have the authority to rule on the Trump administration's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision.

The State Department said parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children and children-in-law would be exempt from the ban on visas for travel to the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries. Hawaii wants to expand that list to include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and siblings-in-law.

As the government is now enforcing the ban, New York's friend of the court brief said, "an ailing grandmother could not receive end-of-life care from her foreign granddaughter. A niece whose foreign aunt was like a mother to her could not bring that aunt to witness and celebrate her wedding. And an orphaned child would not be permitted to receive a visit from the uncle who took care of her financial and emotional needs after her father's untimely death."

The other states who have sided with Hawaii and New York are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. 

###

Another setback for Trump's Muslim ban; AAPI leaders react

IN YET another setback for the Trump administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that his "travel ban" was unconstitutional and upheld the stay on its implementation.

Hawaii's Attorney General Doug Chin flashes a "hang loose" sign after the courts ruled against
the second Presidential executive order instituting a travel ban.

The trio of Ninth Circuit Judges -- Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez — used narrow grounds to reject the Trump administration's bid to undo a  ruling of Derrick Kahala Watson of Hawaii's 3rd District Court blocking the temporary ban. It said the Republican president's March 6 order violated existing immigration law. 

Trump's Executive Order 2.0 did not tie citizens of the targeted countries -- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- to terrorist organizations or contributors to “active conflict,” the court said. It also did not provide any link between their nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism.

“In short, the order does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” the panel said.

Because of the conflict with immigration law, the judges said they didn’t need to consider whether it also violated the Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any religion. The 4th Circuit found the policy unconstitutional on that basis.

Hawaii's Sen.Mazie K. Hirono, an immigrant and an outspoken opponent of the administration’s immigration policies, said, “Court after court has seen this Muslim Ban for what it is: an illegal attack on a group of individuals singled out for their religion. Today is a victory not only for Hawaii, but for our shared American values. The decision is a welcome reminder that the federal courts serve an invaluable function in our system of checks and balances.”

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin released the following statement after the ruling: “I stated from the beginning that the President must act in a way that follows the laws and Constitution of the United States. Our system of checks and balances, enshrined in the Constitution."

Fellow Democrat U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz said, “The Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold (U.S. District )Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling against President Trump’s Muslim ban is another win for the rule of law. The courts continue to affirm what we already know: the Muslim ban is un-American, unconstitutional, and contrary to everything we stand for.”

The 9th Circuit also kept blocking Trump’s suspension of the U.S. refugee program. The court said he was required to consult with Congress in setting the number of refugees allowed into the country in a given year and that he could not decrease it midyear.

The refugee program was not at issue in when the 4th Circuit also ruled against the executive order, the second attempt to implemtn a travel bay by the Trump administration.

"Another victory for American values. 9th Circuit confirms what we already know—the Pres' “travel ban” is really a discriminatory #MuslimBan," said Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth.

“Asian Pacific Americans have historically been targeted by exclusionary laws, giving us first-hand perspectives on the harms this order inflicts upon Muslim and immigrant communities. NAPABA’s community has stepped up to strongly oppose this attack on core American rights and values,” said Cyndie M. Chang, president of National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

"From the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese American incarceration to the Muslim Ban today, xenophobia has driven national policy in ways that fan the flames of irrational fear and hatred," said the Asian Americans Advancing Justice in a statement responding to the court decision. "The court’s decision today affirms America can and must do better than this."

The suits by Hawaii and the Maryland challengers argued that the executive order violated federal immigration law and a section of the Constitution's First Amendment that prohibits the government from flavoring or disfavoring any particular region.lly correct" version of his original one.

Attorneys for the state of Hawaii, who argued before the 9th Circuit, also filed with the Supreme Court on Monday a response to Donald Trump's asking the high court to hear the travel ban litigation and lift the blockades of the ban. The attorneys argued that lifting the blockade of the ban would spark "chaos and confusion," and also cited the president's most recent tweets championing the original travel ban.

Attorneys for the state of Hawaii, who argued before the 9th Circuit, also filed with the Supreme Court on Monday a response to Donald Trump's asking the high court to hear the travel ban litigation and lift the blockades of the ban. The attorneys argued that lifting the blockade of the ban would spark "chaos and confusion," and also cited the president's most recent tweets championing the original travel ban. 

The 9th Circuit's ruling also noted Trump's June 5 tweets calling the executive orders a "travel ban." Trump described the order as a "watered down, politically correct" version of his original order.

###