Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld the Trump travel ban by a 5-4 margin, with the court conservatives joined by Anthony Kennedy. There’s little to add to the story other than that those who upheld the ban sided with the presidency, not the president. They decontextualized the text of the travel ban, saw no obvious racial animus in the language, and ratified executive power. The majority supported the presidency but took the specific president out of the equation. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Kennedy each scolded Trump for being Trump-like in their semi-veiled, judicial language. Kennedy wrote, “The very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.” Unfortunately, the majority put aside the question of what to do when he—in this case—doesn’t.
Here are some of the more interesting analyses on the decision:
- The New York Times editorial doesn’t pull any punches
- In-depth coverage of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, which put the travel ban in context
- The impact of the decision on Muslim Americans
- An op-ed on the hypocrisy of the decision after the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision
- The justices’ concerns about Trump
- The irony of the decision on the day that the court overruled Korematsu
- The travel ban as the Roberts’ Court’s legacy
Are you having legal issues with Immigration? Do you need legal representation?