Supreme Court Weighs in on Trump’s Travel Ban
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)
On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review lower court injunctions against Trump’s travel ban in October.
US District and Appeals Courts blocked them temporarily. Countries affected include Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, banning travel to the US for 90 days, imposing a 120-day ban on refugees.
Iraq was removed from the initial order because of its involvement in the battle for Mosul, America’s phony war on ISIS, the scourge it supports.
In a unanimous per curiam opinion, High Court justices partly lifted an injunction preventing Trump’s travel ban from taking effect.
The administration cannot enforce the ban against anyone with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in America, the Supreme Court opinion stated.
It can against all others in the targeted countries, Muslim majority ones, their people victimized by US imperialism, four of the six raped by US aggression, the other two threatened by Washington.
None of the six or their citizens pose any threat to US national security. In contrast, Trump’s ban targets people on the basis of their religious beliefs in nations ravaged by US aggression and/or opposed to its imperial agenda – no other legitimate reasons.
A justifiable travel ban would prohibit US government officials from traveling to these countries because of the enormous threat they pose – not the other way around as Trump’s travel ban ordered, partly supported by the nation’s highest court, complicit with administration “religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Its chief Judge Roger Gregory added: “Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute.”
“It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation.”
Law Professor Emeritus Marjorie Cohn argued against Trump’s travel ban, saying:
It “violates the Establishment Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.”
“It also violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); both are treaties the United States has ratified, making them part of US law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.”
“The EO violates the Immigration and Nationality Act as well.” High Court justices ignored all of the above, their ruling politically motivated, rule of law principles ignored.
The Supreme Court consolidated cases from the US Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project.
Justices will hear arguments for and against the travel ban when they reconvene in October. ACLU and National Immigration Law Center lawyers will contest the ban. Administration attorneys led by Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall will support it.
Trump said his revised ban will take effect in 72 hours following partial approval by the High Court.
Claiming it’s to protect national security is fabricated nonsense. It continues post-9/11 Islamophobic rage, used as a pretext to wage naked aggression against one Muslim-majority nation after another – raping and destroying them, the highest of high crimes.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.