SCOTUS partially lifts injunction against travel ban ahead of full review

The Supreme Court said in Monday's ruling that President Trump's travel ban can go into effect for foreigners who lack a "bona fide relationship" with someone in the US.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wrote in the ruling that they would have allowed the travel ban to go into full effect, pending a review.

If the Court decides to rule on procedural grounds, the ban will likely be held constitutionally valid with respect to those affected individuals with no ties to the United States. To be clear, the ban’s ninety-day timeline is unlikely to prevent this outcome – given the ban’s wording, it is quite possible, if not entirely probable, that the “temporary pause” in travel will become permanent against the nationals of some, if not all, of the six affected countries.

Should it go down this route, the Supreme Court will empower this president and those who follow him to discriminate against a class of individuals based on religion and national-origin, under the guise of vague national security concerns with virtually no basis in credible fact. Though many individuals may still be allowed into the country under the Court’s ruling, a foundational element of U.S. immigration law and constitutional principle will be eroded. The consequences of this are not minor.

It will mean that religious and national-origin based discrimination in modern day immigration policy will be permissible, at least in some circumstances. This would effectively return us to a pre-1965 U.S. immigration system, in which black and brown immigrants are disfavored. It would undermine one, if not the most, foundational principle of the U.S. Constitution – that the government shall not favor or disfavor any one religion. It would make American Muslims, as well as those Americans with roots in the six affected countries, even more marginalized than they are now –based on a law that treats members of their faith and national groups as presumptively suspect and dangerous. The social meaning of such a Supreme Court ruling would essentially be inescapable.

Perhaps even more troubling, a Supreme Court decision that does not confront the bias reflected in the Muslim Ban will give further credence to the notion that national security is normatively more important than civil liberties – and that a choice must be made between the two. The Muslim Ban is a rare instance in which the invidious purpose of a law is crystal clear – if “national security” wins out in this case, it does not bode well for instances where terrorism concerns more subtly (but no less substantially) discriminate against groups.

LooseGoose wrote:Hawaii is so far from ISIS....

Hawaiian Soldier Arrested, Accused of Trying to Support ISIS