This week the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Trump v. Hawaii. The case covered the Administrations various travel bans since taking office.

Although the Court took into account the underlying law which governs Executive Branch authority to temporarily close or suspend entry to foreign nationals on the basis of the national interest, it still reached two very troubling conclusions.

One, according to the court the President has an indefinite right to ban travel to foreign nationals without any specific check or period of review except those that are set forth by the various departments of the Executive Branch itself.

Second, the court refused to consider bias against a religion because the process itself did not contain a specific prohibition against Muslims. While that is technically the case, the court ignored statements from the President and officials within the administration who made sweeping and degrading statements on Muslims.

Alexei Laushkin, Executive Director, Kingdom Mission Society:

The constitutional order requires a balance of powers, and, as such, the Supreme Court should not make the Executive Branch the main determiner on longer terms travel bans. National security and border protection are legitimate interests of any state, but one should not grant undue state power to an Executive without the proper review of the other branches of Government. Bias against Muslims does not serve America’s interest, and while rules of the road should be followed to ensure public safety, the comments of the President and related officials should have been taken directly into account whether the underlying law suggested this or not.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *