Trump, immigration and the Supreme Court

by Andrew P Napolitano

"Earlier this week, after nearly uniform rejections by judges all across the country, President Donald Trump achieved a court victory in the persistent challenges to his most recent executive order restricting the immigration of people into the United States from six predominately Muslim countries. Lower federal courts had consistently ruled that the president’s behavior was animated by an anti-Muslim bias — a bias he forcefully articulated during the presidential election campaign — concluding that what appeared to be, on its face, a travel ban based rationally on national security needs was in reality a 'Muslim ban' based on religious fear, prejudice or hatred. The Supreme Court unanimously saw it differently. Here is the back story." (06/28/17)

  • dL

    If an executive order is based on a denial of a fundamental liberty (other than travel) — speech or religion, for example

    Travel, freedom of association are fundamental liberties. As such they trump any appeals to the common good, national security, foreign policy etc as grounds for abridgment. It is not even up for a debate. Don't even have to make an appeal to libertarianism, here. This is liberalism 101. Thomas, Alito and Neil Gorsuch claiming that denying POTUS the power to unilaterally dictate "who may and may not come and go" interferes w/ POTUS foreign policy is the most egregious example of making shit up "living constitutionalism" I've ever seen.

    And then those who want to challenge the president in court will be able to contest the law as the Supreme Court will articulate it. And this troublesome business of banning people from coming here because of their place of origin will be with us for a long time.

    The only thing Napolitano gets right in that piece….