Trump's travel ban faces U.S. Supreme
Send a link to a friend
[April 23, 2018]
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first big
showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's
immigration policies is set for Wednesday when the justices hear a
challenge to the lawfulness of his travel ban targeting people from
several Muslim-majority countries.
The case represents a test of the limits of presidential power. Trump's
policy, announced in September, blocks entry into the United States of
most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Chad previously
was on the list but Trump lifted those restrictions on April 10.
The high court has never decided the legal merits of the travel ban or
any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind
protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into
the United States illegally as children. It has previously acted on
Trump requests to undo lower court orders blocking those two policies,
siding with him on the travel ban and opposing him on the Dreamers.
Trump's immigration policies - also including actions taken against
states and cities that protect illegal immigrants, intensified
deportation efforts and limits on legal immigration - have been among
his most contentious.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court is due to hear arguments on
Wednesday on the third version of a travel ban policy Trump first sought
to implement a week after taking office in January 2017, and issue a
ruling by the end of June.
The lead challenger is the state of Hawaii, which argues the ban
violates federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution's prohibition
on the government favoring one religion over another.
"Right now, the travel ban is keeping families apart. It is degrading
our values by subjecting a specific set of people to be denigrated and
marginalized," Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin said in an
The Supreme Court on Dec. 4 signaled it may lean toward backing Trump
when it granted the administration's request to let the ban go into full
effect while legal challenges played out.
In another immigration-related case, the justices on April 17
invalidated a provision in a U.S. law requiring deportation of
immigrants convicted of certain crimes of violence. Trump's
administration and the prior Obama administration had defended the
Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States
from terrorism by Islamic militants. Just before the latest ban was
announced, Trump wrote on Twitter that the restrictions "should be far
larger, tougher and more specific - but stupidly that would not be
The challengers have argued the policy was motivated by Trump's enmity
toward Muslims, pressing that point in lower courts with some success by
citing statements he made as a candidate and as president. As a
candidate, Trump promised "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States."
[to top of second column]
President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on immigration
reform in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, U.S.,
August 2, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo
The Justice Department argues Trump's statements as a candidate
carry no weight because he was not yet president. The policy's
challengers also point to views he has expressed as president,
including his retweets in November of anti-Muslim videos posted by a
far-right British political figure.
In a court filing last week, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco,
representing Trump in court, said those retweets "do not address the
meaning" of the travel ban policy.
Francisco cited Trump statements complimentary toward Muslims and
Islam, including in a May 2017 speech in Saudi Arabia.
In defending the ban, the administration has pointed to a waiver
provision allowing people from targeted countries to seek entry if
they meet certain criteria. The State Department said that as of
last month 375 waivers to the travel ban had been granted since the
policy went into effect on Dec 8.
Some former Republican senators and officials who served in
Republican former President George W. Bush's administration have
signed onto legal briefs asking the high court to invalidate the
"I think the travel ban is a terribly misguided policy that appeared
to be motivated more by a political intention of the president than
by any real national security need," John Bellinger, the State
Department's top legal advisor during the Bush administration, said
in an interview.
The arguments in the case follow U.S. missile strikes this month in
one of the targeted countries, Syria, after Trump's administration
blamed President Bashar al-Assad for a chemical weapons attack on
Syrian people near Damascus.
"Lots of people have pointed out the hypocrisy of the president on
the one hand being willing to bomb Syria and on the other hand being
unwilling to accept refugees and immigrants from that country who
are trying to escape," lawyer Omar Jadwat of the American Civil
Liberties Union, which challenged the travel ban in a separate case
in Maryland, said in an interview.
Venezuela and North Korea also were targeted in the travel ban but
those restrictions were not challenged in court.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Mica
Rosenberg; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.