The Supreme Court has upheld Trump’s travel ban:
The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservatives in the majority.
The court’s decision, a major statement on presidential power, marked the conclusion of a long-running dispute over Mr. Trump’s authority to make good on his campaign promises to secure the nation’s borders.
The Court ruled that the president was within his rights to bar entry of foreign nationals from the countries included in the ban, and the majority simply ignored the circumstances of how and why this ban was put in place. It should be obvious that the ban was motivated primarily by animus against Muslims. Insofar as Trump was fulfilling a campaign promise, he was fulfilling a promise to discriminate against Muslims. That was always the point of instituting the ban. The Court’s decision tells the executive branch that it can discriminate on the basis of religion so long as they pretend they are not doing that and concoct a bogus national security reason for their actions.
The countries selected were convenient targets in that their governments were weak or loathed in Washington. The national security justification for the ban was spurious. Barring nationals from these countries does nothing to make the U.S. more secure, but it does impose obnoxious burdens on U.S. citizens and their relatives. The ban remains as cruel and unnecessary as ever, and if it is technically legal that is just proof that the president’s authority in these matters needs to be curtailed.