On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court voted along party lines (5-4) to uphold President Donald Trump’s third version of the travel ban. What does this ruling imply for the future of immigration law?
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, issued a strong message implying that the executive branch of the government has broad powers to alter and enforce immigration laws and policies.
“Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition,” Roberts wrote. “But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”
In using this approach, the Supreme Court’s majority acknowledges the President’s campaign promises, but chooses not to consider them in regard to the policies enacted by the proclamation issued last year. Thus, although the President’s campaign promises targeted Muslim individuals and the Islamic religion, the Supreme Court denies that these promises had any effect on the proclamation being reviewed.
Moreover, according to the ruling, the President of the United States maintains broad powers to ensure national security, including barring the entry of those the White House believes could impose harm on the country. For example, as noted by analysts from The Washington Post, neither of the two dissenting opinions included opposition to this statement from the majority. Instead, the dissenting opinions were primarily focused on the racial and religious animus and tones of the Presidential campaign which led to the enactment of the proclamation.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has “reaffirmed the President’s sweeping authority when it comes to deciding who may and who may not travel to the United States,” according to Stephen Vladeck, CNN’s supreme court analyst.
As the President gains more executive authority over immigration law, it is important to start carefully and expediently sorting out your immigration matters so as to avoid any future obstacles. Although we stress the importance of acting with urgency, we do want to acknowledge that Trump v Hawaii was related to President Trump’s third travel ban. The third travel ban was a reiteration of previous travel bans which were blocked by lower courts, meaning that the version of the travel ban which was ruled Constitutional was a revised and edited version of earlier drafts. As such, although the President has been granted broad immigration powers, the courts still have say in what policies can and cannot be enacted.
Moreover, in the court’s opinions arising from Trump V Hawaii, there was a strong denunciation of Korematsu v United States, a case which dealt with the forcible internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The court’s opinion clearly states that immigration-related policies which are motivated by racial animus are not Constitutional and outside the scope of presidential authority.
As the President’s administration continues to carry out its America First campaign promises, we will keep analyzing the laws and expected court cases to bring you the latest news and analysis. In the meantime, please consider solidifying your immigration status and planning out the future of your travel to and from the United States.
Should you have any questions, please call our office at (212) 490-0900.
Speak Your Mind
You must be logged in to post a comment.