Good news and a buried lede out of the Supreme Court today. By a 5-4 decision, the court has upheld President Trump’s restriction on travel to the United States from certain nations.
5-4: Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban
By Allahpundit, Hot Air
Two big differences in the travel-ban case, argues John Roberts on behalf of the Court. The president has vast authority over immigration policy. And because immigration policy burdens non-citizens, the Court’s standard of review is more deferential to the executive. Result: 5-4 to uphold the ban, with the five conservatives forming a majority and the Court’s liberals voting as usual as a bloc in every single case that matters. You have to go back to Byron White to find a Democratic appointee as unorthodox as Kennedy or David Souter or John Paul Stevens or Sandra Day O’Connor or even John Roberts were/are among Republican appointees.
Explicitly, Constitutionally protected Rights protect United States Persons. They do not extend to foreign nationals attempting to enter the country.
Chief Justice Roberts took exception to the minorities citation of Korematsu v. United States (Presidential Authority to Intern U. S. Citizens in time of war), and explicitly overturned that as well.
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States,
323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the
dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do
with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to
concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of
race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential
authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that
morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying
certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission.
See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is
well within executive authority and could have been taken
by any other President—the only question is evaluating
the actions of this particular President in promulgating an
otherwise valid Proclamation.
The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords
this Court the opportunity to make express what is already
obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it
was decided, has been overruled in the court of history,
and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.”
323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
Better late than never, but this has been an outrage for 66 years. Note also that the four dissenting justices are now on record as voting to keep Korematsu on the books.