Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash, speaks
at an anti-Muslim ban rally outside
the Supreme Court as the court hears
arguments about wether President
Donald Trump's ban on travelers from
several mostly Muslim countries
violates immigration law or the
Constitution, Wednesday, April 25,
2018, in Washington. (Photo: Andrew
Harnik, AP)
Trump
seems
likely
to win
travel
ban case
at
Supreme
Court
By
MARK
SHERMAN
APNews.com
WASHINGTON
-
President
Donald
Trump
appears
likely
to win
his
travel
ban case
at the
Supreme
Court.
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
and
Justice
Anthony
Kennedy
both
signaled
support
for the
travel
policy
in
arguments
Wednesday
at the
high
court.
The
ban’s
challengers
almost
certainly
need one
of those
two
justices
if the
court is
to
strike
down the
ban on
travelers
from
several
mostly
Muslim
countries.
The
travel
ban case
is the
court’s
first
comprehensive
look at
a Trump
policy —
one of
considerable
importance
to the
president
and
highly
controversial
since it
was
first
rolled
out a
week
after
Trump
took
office.
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
was the
most
aggressive
questioner
of
Solicitor
General
Noel
Francisco
in his
defense
of the
Trump
policy,
and the
three
other
liberal
justices
also
raised
questions
about
it.
The
justices
voted in
December
to allow
the
policy
to take
full
effect
pending
their
full
consideration.
Wednesday
was the
first
time
they
took it
up in
open
court.
The
Trump
administration
is
asking
the
court to
reverse
lower
court
rulings
that
would
strike
down the
ban.
The
Supreme
Court is
considering
whether
the
president
can
indefinitely
keep
people
out of
the
country
based on
nationality.
It is
also
looking
at
whether
the
policy
is aimed
at
excluding
Muslims
from the
United
States.
A
decision
is
expected
by late
June.
Kennedy
challenged
lawyer
Neal
Katyal,
representing
the
policy’s
opponents,
about
whether
the ban
would be
unending.
He said
the
policy’s
call for
a report
every
six
months
“indicates
there’ll
be a
reassessment”
from
time to
time.
“You
want the
president
to say,
’I’m
convinced
that in
six
months
we’re
going to
have a
safe
world,’”
Kennedy
said,
seemingly
rejecting
Katyal’s
argument.
His
only
question
that
seemed
to favor
the
challengers
came
early in
the
arguments,
when he
asked
Francisco
whether
Trump’s
campaign
trail
call to
keep
Muslims
from
entering
the
United
States
should
be
considered
in
evaluating
the
administration’s
ban.
Francisco
told the
justices
that
they
shouldn’t
look at
Trump’s
campaign
statements.
Kennedy
pressed
on that
point.
Speaking
of a
hypothetical
“local
candidate,”
he asked
if what
was said
during
the
candidate’s
campaign
was
irrelevant
if on
“day
two” of
his
administration
the
candidate
acted on
those
statements.
Francisco
held his
ground
saying
the
presidential
oath of
office
“marks a
fundamental
transformation.”
From
the
other
side,
Sotomayor
told
Francisco
she
doubted
that the
president
has “the
authority
to do
more
than
Congress
has
already
decided
is
adequate”
under
immigration
law. She
and
Justice
Elena
Kagan
also
questioned
Francisco
closely
about
whether
the ban
discriminates
against
Muslims.
With
Katyal
at the
lectern,
Justice
Samuel
Alito
said it
seemed
wrong to
call the
travel
policy a
Muslim
ban when
it
applies
to just
five of
50
mostly
Muslim
countries,
8
percent
of the
world’s
Muslim
population
and just
one
country
— Iran —
among
the 10
largest
with
Muslim
majorities.
“Would a
reasonable
observer
think
this is
a Muslim
ban?”
Alito
asked.
People
waited
in line
for
seats
for
days,
and on
Wednesday
morning
opponents
of the
ban
demonstrated
outside
the
court
holding
signs
that
read “No
Muslim
Ban.
Ever”
and
“Refugees
Welcome,”
among
other
things.
In
another
sign of
heightened
public
interest,
the
court
took the
rare
step of
making
an audio
recording
of the
proceedings
available.
The last
time the
court
did that
was for
gay
marriage
arguments
in 2015.
The
justices
are
looking
at the
third
version
of a
policy
that
Trump
first
rolled
out a
week
after
taking
office,
triggering
chaos
and
protests
across
the U.S.
as
travelers
were
stopped
from
boarding
international
flights
and
detained
at
airports
for
hours.
The
first
version
was
blocked
by
courts
and
withdrawn.
Its
replacement
was
allowed
to take
partial
effect,
but
expired
in
September.
The
current
version
is
indefinite
and now
applies
to
travelers
from
five
countries
with
overwhelmingly
Muslim
populations
— Iran,
Libya,
Somalia,
Syria
and
Yemen.
It also
affects
two
non-Muslim
countries,
blocking
travelers
from
North
Korea
and some
Venezuelan
government
officials
and
their
families.
A sixth
majority-Muslim
country,
Chad,
was
removed
from the
list
this
month
after
improving
“its
identity-management
and
information
sharing
practices,”
Trump
said in
a
proclamation.
Trump’s
campaign
pledge
to shut
down
Muslims’
entry
into the
U.S.,
his
presidential
tweets
about
the
travel
ban and
last
fall’s
retweets
of
inflammatory
videos
that
stoked
anti-Islam
sentiment
all
preceded
the
justices’
questioning
of
Francisco,
defending
the ban,
and
Katyal,
the
former
acting
solicitor
general
under
President
Barack
Obama.
The
administration
has
argued
that
courts
have no
role to
play
because
the
president
has
broad
powers
over
immigration
and
national
security,
and
foreigners
have no
right to
enter
the
country.
Francisco
also has
said in
written
arguments
that
Trump’s
September
proclamation
laying
out the
current
policy
comports
with
immigration
law and
does not
violate
the
Constitution
because
it does
not
single
out
Muslims.
The
challengers,
backed
by a
diverse
array of
supporting
legal
briefs,
have
said
that
Trump is
flouting
immigration
law by
trying
to keep
more
than 150
million
people,
the vast
majority
of them
Muslim,
from
entering
the
country.
They
also
argue
that his
policy
amounts
to the
Muslim
ban that
he
called
for as a
candidate,
violating
the
Constitution’s
prohibition
against
religious
bias.