US Supreme Court edges toward backing Trump travel ban

US Supreme Court edges toward backing Trump travel ban
3 min read
25 April, 2018
Five of nine justices appeared ready to uphold Trump's travel ban affecting Muslim-majority countries.
The travel ban caused chaos and protests when it was first introduced last year [Getty]
A narrow majority of justices of the US Supreme Court appeared to back President Donald Trump's contentious travel ban, which is undergoing its biggest legal test yet.

Five of the nine members appeared convinced that Trump had not overshot his authority over immigration matters in the most recent version of the ban affecting several Muslim-majority countries, which the administration claims is justified by national security concerns.

Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy - who often casts a swing vote - asked skeptical questions of those challenging the ban.

The court's four liberal-leaning justices honed in on the policy's focus on Muslim countries and Trump's record of anti-Muslim statements during the 2016 election.

But the adjusted, so-called Version 3.0 of the travel ban issued in September that includes North Korea and Venezuela with six Muslim countries appeared to pass muster with most justices. 

Read more: Illegal, unconstitutional or just racist? Trump's travel ban heads to Supreme Court

"If you look at what was done, it does not look at all like a Muslim ban," said Justice Samuel Alito.

The hearing on Wednesday was the culmination of a 15-month battle over a policy that quickly became a hallmark of the Trump era. 

It has triggered protests, including one outside the court that saw activists carrying signs that read "Proud American Muslim" and "No Bigotry, No Hate".

Just one week into his presidency on January 27, 2017, Trump followed through with a campaign promise and announced a 90-day ban on travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - creating chaos as hundreds of travelers were blocked at airports.

Tens of thousands of legal visas were canceled and protesters took to the streets.

Courts in several states found the measure was illegal, and did so again in March 2017 after the Trump administration slightly amended the original order, with Iraq dropped from the list.

A furious Trump bashed the courts and his own Justice Department, but was forced to recast the ban again. 

Issued in September, the latest version was open-ended, dropped Sudan, and added Chad, North Korea and a selection of Venezuelan officials.

Rights groups said those changes were cosmetic to mask the anti-Muslim nature of the policy.

Read more: Travel ban 3.0 still doesn't conceal Trump's anti-Muslim bias

Lower courts accepted their arguments and again froze the ban. But the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the policy to go into effect in October ahead of the hearing.

The result is an almost complete cutoff of travelers from the named countries.

Trump 'exceeded' powers

Neal Katyal, the attorney representing Hawaii, where the first challenge to the latest ban arose, said Trump had exceeded his authority.

"It's a power no president in 100 years has exercised," Katyal told the justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from the court's liberal wing, echoed the point. 

"Where does the president get the authority to do more than what the Congress has set?" she asked.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the Trump administration, defended the ban as justified on national security grounds.

"The exclusion of aliens is a political act," he said. "It does fall well within the power of the president," he told the court.

"This is not a so-called Muslim ban... It's an order based on a multi-agency review," he added.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Francisco to consider what it would be like if a president ordered a ban on Israeli travelers after making anti-Semitic statements.

"If his cabinet were to actually come to him and say, Mr President, there is honestly a national security risk here and you have to act, I think then that the president would be allowed to follow that advice, even if in his private heart of hearts he also harbored animus," Francisco answered.

The court is expected to review the case over the next two months before ruling in late June.