While I am glad the court upheld the travel ban I still find it shocking it wasn’t a unanimous ruling. The authority that Trump used came from Congress itself who decided the president should have the power to regulate immigration in this manner. The majority ruling relies on the law as summarized well below.
2. The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted
to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United
States. Pp. 9–24.
(a) By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in
every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and
when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on
what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to
impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated
in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187. The Proclamation falls well within
this comprehensive delegation.
While some may argue that the Constitution does not grant immigration to the federal government that wasn’t argued in this case. I believe the court ruled properly and immediately wondered how such clear language could be misconstrued by some of the justices.
However, once I got to the dissenting opinion it was made clear just how they came to their conclusion.
They didn’t misconstrue the language of the law, they ignored it.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, dissenting.
The United States of America is a Nation built upon the
promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that
core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality
in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision
today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It
leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and
unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States” because the policy now
masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns.
Rather than focus on the actual law and the actual power vested in the president by that law they chose to focus on what they thought he meant by using that power. What is frustrating about this is that it defies logic and can only be an opinion formed in the absence of information. In this case they willfully excluded the fact that not all Muslim countries are on the ban list and that the ban makes no mention of Muslims or Islam whatsoever and is equally applied to all individuals in those affected countries regardless of religion affiliation. And it ignores that Muslims from any other country in the world not on the list can enter. In no case related to this is a person even asked about his or her religion. The dissenting members of the court simply ignored all that to form an opinion based on a myth they created.
What makes me sad and angry about that is that these people are supposed to be the unbiased and dispassionate about the law – the LAW. But they aren’t and that calls into question their ability to properly adjudicate cased before the court.