[ad_1]
The Supreme Court handed over President Trump
Donald John TrumpCohen's lawyers support 12,000 articles protected by professional secrecy: reports A former employee of a migrant detention facility is leaking footage from the inside up to MSNBC Trump identifies the trail of Appalachian as a "Tallahassee Trail" by making fun of Sanford a major victory on Tuesday, confirming its ban preventing nationals of five Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.
In a 5-4 decision, the conservative wing of the court said that Trump has wide discretion under the immigration law to suspend the entry of people in the United States .
"The President has legally exercised this discretion on the basis of his findings – following a worldwide multi-agency review – that the entry of the aliens targeted would be detrimental to the national interest," wrote the Chief Justice John Roberts in the notice.
The state of Hawaii and others contending with the ban argued that Trump's anti-Muslim comments during the election campaign and in the office showed that the now-indefinite politics was rooted in animosity towards the United States. Muslims and unconstitutionally discriminated against a specific religion.
Roberts and the majority disagreed, arguing that the government's stated goal for banning – protecting the country and improving control processes – was plausible.
"Because there is convincing evidence that the suspension of entry has a legitimate basis in national security concerns, regardless of any religious hostility, we must accept this independent justification," he said.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing dissent, which was joined by her colleague Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She said that a reasonable observer would conclude, on the basis of the evidence, that the proclamation was motivated by prejudices against Muslims.
"In the end, what began as a policy explicitly" calling for a total and total closure of Muslims entering the United States "has turned into a" Proclamation "based on national security concerns", she said.
"But this new facade can not hide an unassailable fact: the words of the president and his advisers create the strong impression that the Proclamation is contaminated by an inadmissible discriminatory animosity against Islam and its supporters."
She reprimanded her colleagues for blindly accepting the government's misguided invitation to set aside Trump's problematic comments, which she described in detail.
"The First Amendment is a bulwark against official religious prejudices and embodies the deep commitment of our nation to religious plurality and tolerance," she said.
"This constitutional promise is the reason why, for centuries, people have come to this country from all corners of the world to share the blessing of religious freedom." Instead of defending these principles, the decision today Who is putting them aside. "
In a separate dissent, to which Judge Elena Kagan joined, Judge Stephen Breyer argued that the case should be remitted to the lower court to determine whether the administration provides the waivers and remedies. exemptions that she set out in the proclamation.
"How can the government successfully say that the proclamation is based on security needs if it excludes Muslims who meet the conditions of the proclamation?", He asked.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sided with the majority and could have been the pivotal vote, also offered interesting comments in a two-page concurring opinion.
He has joined the majority of the court in its entirety, but has apparently warned Trump against public statements that disadvantage a religion in the future, without explicitly naming the president.
"There are many cases in which the statements and actions of government officials are not subject to judicial review or intervention," he wrote. "This does not mean that these officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects."
In a statement from the White House, Trump hailed the decision not only as a "tremendous victory" for the American people and the Constitution, but as a more personal victory.
"This decision is also a moment of deep justification after months of hysterical media comment and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what is necessary to secure our border and our country," he said.
"As long as I am president, I will defend the sovereignty, security and safety of the American people, and I will fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens. always safe, secure and protected on my watch.
The decision, which divided the court along party lines, comes in the public tumult over the Trump administration's treatment of families illegally captured across the southern border.
The ban on travel and the already old practice of the administration of separating families have all been part of the administration's efforts to restrict the number of immigrants entering the United States.
Neal Katyal, who pleaded the case on behalf of the state of Hawaii, who led the challenge to the ban, said the president would be wrong to interpret the Tuesday's decision as a green light to continue his reckless and anti-American policy.
"As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, everything that is constitutional is not a good policy," he said.
"The ban on traveling is an atrocious policy, and makes us less safe and undermines our American ideals.Now that the court has confirmed, it is up to Congress to do its job and to reverse the law. unilateral and imprudent travel ban on President Trump. "
Trump issued the first travel ban – which detractors invented a Muslim ban – just seven days after it ended.
This has led to massive protests in the country's airports and a great deal of confusion over who could be allowed to enter the United States.
A series of judicial battles followed, and the administration was twice forced to revise its original proposal.
The latest policy, issued by presidential proclamation, limited travel to the United States by people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen. Chad was also included originally, but the White House decided to remove it from the list in April.
The proclamation also banned immigrants from North Korea and individuals affiliated with certain government agencies in Venezuela, but these restrictions were not blocked by the courts.
The ban was drafted after the first order issued by Trump was blocked by lower courts and his second ban expired before reaching the Supreme Court's last warrant. The order barred people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan from coming to the United States for 90 days and barred all refugees from spending 120 days.
The Supreme Court gave Trump a partial victory in January when it allowed the full ban to come into effect after the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruled that the president could only ban people if they are missing a good faith relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), One of the two Muslim members of Congress, tweeted that he was saddened by the decision.
"Today's decision undermines the fundamental value of religious tolerance on which America was founded" he said in a statement. "I am deeply disappointed that this decision gives legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia".
Meanwhile, civil rights activists have sentenced the court.
"This decision will remain in history as one of the great failures of the Supreme Court," said Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrant Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. a statement.
"He repeats the mistakes of Korematsu's decision confirming the US-Japanese imprisonment and swallows the excuse of the fragile national security of the government's lawyers for the ban instead of taking seriously the explanation of the president for his actions, "he said.
Sotomayor cited the decision Korematsu c. United States in its dissent, which led the court to expressly denounce the 1944 decision as unlawful.
"The forced relocation of US citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively illegal and beyond the reach of presidential authority," Roberts said.
"But it is wholly inappropriate to compare this morally repugnant order with a visually neutral policy that denies certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission."
Updated at 17:34
[ad_2]
Source link
