President Trump stated this “ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.”
Someone had a deep exhalation on June 26, 2017 thanks to a fresh breath of air provided by a unanimous dissection of lower courts’ decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). That person is President Donald Trump. The pursuant inhalation stems from the Court’s ruling that the commander-in-chief’s Muslim-nation travel ban can proceed, albeit temporarily for 90-days, overruling the lower courts’ suppression in recent months.
In Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. International Refugee Assistance Project, and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Hawaii et al. SCOTUS considered Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” which, implicit in its title, grants the Trump administration the authority to ensure national security by stemming potential terrorism by nationals seeking to emigrate from Muslim nations. The nations listed in President Trump’s travel ban are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Today’s SCOTUS ruling etches another notch in President Trump’s belt, echoing his America First Foreign Policy which promised “Defeating ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups will be our highest priority.” Another decisive national security victory, for sure. A temporary enforcement of the travel ban is a step in that direction.
And given the language in today’s SCOTUS opinion, it appears more is to follow in the direction of resolve.
Ultimately, this morning’s in-part SCOTUS decision opened the door for US immigration officials to start banning Muslim nationals without a qualifying connection to enter America. In its written opinion, SCOTUS summed it up: “In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [Executive Order–2].”
The word “temporary” is mentioned in the SCOTUS opinion because it foresees having to dissect and rule on what qualifies Muslims to enter and/or stay. More, specifically, it awaits the Trump administration criteria governing visas and what qualifies for entry. The Justices included in their ruling that vetting is necessary to permit “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States…” and how we as a nation carrying that out warrants concrete criteria and stringent enforcement. A question of equities looms.
Essentially, the onus is on Muslim nationals desiring entry to the United States to demonstrate viable associations to qualify for stay in America. Examples of what qualifies are pre-established employment with an American company, enrollment in an educational institution in the United States, or familial bases such as blood relatives who are already naturalized US citizens.
Today’s decision soothes the battle cry of President Trump who, in early February 2017, tweeted “When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security – big trouble!”
Follow-up examination will resume in the Fall, after the Court’s summer break matures. In its “slip opinion” SCOTUS acknowledges the potential for “a flood of litigation” to be taken up by the courts, hence definitive language as to proper vetting criteria required from the Trump administration is paramount.
Conservative Consensus
Although the travel ban is green-lighted for a 90-day test run, SCOTUS Justices Samuel Alito, Jr., Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas all conceded a desire to implement the full travel ban immediately, citing President Trump’s authority to do so as well as the compelling gravity relating to our nation’s security. Writing for the three aforementioned Justices, Judge Clarence Thomas said:
“The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.’ Finally, weighing the Government’s interest in preserving national security against the hardships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry into the country, the balance of the equities favors the Government. I would thus grant the Government’s applications for a stay in their entirety.”
President Trump’s Reaction
In a written statement on whitehouse.gov, President Donald Trump reacted to SCOTUS green-lighting his travel ban, saying “Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security.” Graciously, President Trump acknowledged the High Court, stating the “ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.”
It was President Trump who, after witnessing courts in five states beat down his travel ban, maintained his course until arriving at the steps of the United States Supreme Court. Decidedly, patience truly is a virtue.
A curious line mid-way through the SCOTUS ruling today is as follows: “(The Government has not requested that we expedite consideration of the merits to a greater extent.)” The parenthetical marks are verbatim and highlight the notion that perhaps more is to come. Indeed, there is more work to be done, and I suspect the Trump administration is busily calculating further efforts to ensure national security as is framed by the US Constitution.
In the Fall
Let’s revisit that “flood of litigation” innuendo stated by Justice Clarence Thomas. Ultimately, today was a compromise granting some leeway to the Trump presidency in enforcing the travel ban. The window was left open for further consideration, namely qualifications defining vetting criterion:
“The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid §2(c)’ of Executive Order No. 13780. And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now—unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.”
The two District Courts referred to? Hawaii and Washington.
For now, the seasons change: Fall back, then Spring ahead…
