Supreme Court hearing arguments over travel ban

The Supreme Court is listening to arguments over the third version of President Trump's controversial travel ban that limits immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries.

Posted: Apr 25, 2018 11:27 PM
Updated: Apr 25, 2018 11:30 PM

Conservative justices and swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to side with the Trump administration Wednesday as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on President Donald Trump's travel ban.

More than a year after Trump caused chaos in the airports by following through on a campaign promise and restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries, the justices considered the legality of a third version of the original travel ban to decide whether the President ultimately exceeded his authority.

Coming out of oral arguments, the justices wrestled with the travel ban, at times breaking down on ideological lines.

Kennedy's vote could be key, and while he did express some reservation about a candidate's expressions of animus against Muslims during the campaign, he didn't seem to have overall concerns about the President's authority to ban entry, noting that the travel ban could be reviewed every 180 days. Other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, also highlighted the President's power in this area.

The Trump administration argued forcefully in favor of the travel ban, with Solicitor General Noel Francisco emphasizing "this is not a so-called 'Muslim ban.'"

"It excludes the vast majority of the Muslim world," he told the justices, saying the presidential order was based on neutral criteria and written "after a worldwide multi-agency review."

Alito also noted that the ban only impacts a handful of Muslim-majority countries, at one point stating this does "not look like a Muslim ban."

As Francisco took the podium, liberal justices pounced on the scope of the ban, its indefinite nature and whether it exceeded the President's authority.

Pressed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor about where the President "gets the authority to do more" than what Congress already decided, Francisco said it's up to the executive branch to "set up, to maintain and to constantly improve" the screening system.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan brought up a hypothetical: what if a president gave strong anti-Semitic statements during his campaign and then issued a proclamation saying no one from Israel could enter the country. She asked if those statements wouldn't be relevant and indicate animus.

Kennedy offered his own hypothetical concern about a candidate who might express hateful statements, and then "takes acts that are consistent with those hateful statements."

"Whatever he said in his campaign is irrelevant?" he asked.

Later, critically, when Neal Katyal, arguing for Hawaii against the ban, came to the podium, Kennedy seemed to express more sympathy for Trump's position. He noted that the travel ban could be examined every 180 days.

And Kennedy asked with skepticism whether the courts should be second guessing the political branches when it comes to national security.

"Your argument is," he said, "that courts have the duty to review whether or not there is such a national contingency -- that's for the courts to do, not the President?" he asked Katyal.

Roberts stressed the White House's national security concerns and asked whether "any type of targeted action" that might impact the Muslim population would give rise to claims of discrimination.

At the end of arguments, Katyal told the justices that if the President disavowed all of his statements, he wouldn't have an issue here.

Katyal told the justices that he told the 9th Circuit exactly that but the President hasn't done that.

Francisco said at the end that Trump has stated this is not a Muslim ban and pointed to specific statements from September 25.

"He has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country and he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world," Francisco said.

Ahead of the hearing, a handful of protesters rallied outside the court, holding signs that read "No Muslim Ban Ever," "We will stand together" and "Come for one, face us all."

Several speakers -- including Nihad Awad, the national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- also addressed the crowd outside.

"This Constitution, he thinks it's a toy to be played with and to be thrown away when he's bored with its protections," Awad said.

After various iterations of the ban ricocheted through the courts, the Supreme Court agreed last December to allow travel ban 3.0 to go entirely into effect pending appeal.

RELATED: Conservatives exert new control over Supreme Court

The version of the ban before the court, signed in September, came after the administration completed a worldwide review as to the vetting procedures of several countries. The ban restricts the entry of noncitizens from seven countries to varying degrees: Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Venezuela. (Chad has been removed from the list, which Francisco also noted during the hearing)

In court briefs, Katyal relied on a "litany" of statements that Trump made during the campaign and afterward concerning a restriction of Muslims entering the United States and notes that even though the current proclamation was crafted after a review of the entry policies of other governments, it is a "direct descendant of previous bans" covering many of the same countries.

His brief includes some of the President's statements on the campaign trail calling for a "Muslim ban" as well as a retweet of three anti-Muslim propaganda videos he sent on November 29, 2017.

Strong message from court

Both sides say that if the court greenlights the ban it will send a strong message for other presidents and could shed light on how courts should consider statements a president makes during a campaign or on his Twitter feed.

"Nobody denies that the president wields extraordinary power over immigration and national security," said Joshua Matz, who sided with the challengers in a brief filed on behalf of constitutional scholars. "What's at stake here is the president's ability to evade any legal consequence for his own public statements, including those broadcast on a global stage."

Joshua A. Geltzer of Georgetown Law, who also opposes the ban, says the case is about the office of the president, not any one president. "It's about whether our federal courts have a meaningful role to play in enforcing the limits of those authorities, or whether -- as the government argues here -- the courts simply shouldn't be looking at this at all," he said.

Josh Blackman, a law professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, believes the justices will find that the travel ban passes legal muster.

"If the court upholds the travel ban on statutory grounds, it will signal that Congress has for decades vested the president with the flexibility to respond to an unforeseeable national security dynamic," he said.

Blackman thinks the court will find that the President has his own inherent constitutional authority to exclude noncitizens and the justices won't hold campaign statements against the President.

"If the Supreme Court rules that the President's actions can be halted based on his campaign statements, courts will be drawn into the unenviable position of serving as fact-checkers for the executive branch," he said.

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Confirmed Cases: 150664

Reported Deaths: 4008
CountyConfirmedDeaths
Marion24697784
Lake13220352
St. Joseph8877159
Elkhart8469132
Allen7880222
Hamilton5962113
Vanderburgh559360
Tippecanoe354714
Monroe320738
Hendricks3183130
Johnson2995128
Porter297848
Clark285461
Delaware282074
Vigo252637
Madison229593
Cass222021
LaPorte215557
Warrick188464
Kosciusko176823
Floyd174867
Howard158866
Bartholomew139758
Dubois135125
Marshall132526
Henry122628
Grant120939
Wayne119327
Boone118848
Hancock114145
Noble113533
Jackson108713
Morgan92240
Dearborn91628
Daviess84033
Gibson83411
Clinton81616
Shelby79429
Lawrence78534
LaGrange76715
Harrison74024
Putnam71016
Knox70310
DeKalb69411
Posey6796
Steuben6008
Fayette58517
Miami5845
Montgomery57222
White56815
Jasper5624
Greene51837
Scott50813
Decatur49839
Adams4725
Clay4346
Whitley4316
Sullivan42812
Ripley4228
Wells4155
Starke3937
Wabash3919
Orange38725
Huntington3785
Spencer3706
Franklin36525
Jennings36013
Washington3592
Randolph3398
Fulton3362
Jefferson3305
Pike31913
Carroll31413
Perry29514
Jay2876
Fountain2863
Tipton26823
Parke2203
Newton21811
Vermillion2181
Rush2044
Owen2021
Martin1950
Blackford1923
Crawford1491
Pulaski1471
Brown1303
Ohio1227
Benton1070
Union1040
Switzerland890
Warren751
Unassigned0233

Ohio Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Confirmed Cases: 185639

Reported Deaths: 5083
CountyConfirmedDeaths
Franklin30978635
Cuyahoga19436675
Hamilton16234338
Montgomery10083186
Lucas8175370
Butler8028123
Summit6555261
Warren406360
Stark3696178
Mahoning3635283
Marion335149
Pickaway296946
Delaware281127
Lorain266689
Fairfield257856
Licking248865
Wood244681
Clark242454
Clermont234937
Trumbull2221134
Greene219640
Columbiana210187
Allen203873
Miami195656
Lake188357
Medina180242
Portage156167
Mercer147128
Ross133833
Wayne131568
Richland128624
Tuscarawas123622
Athens11742
Erie113853
Darke110151
Madison103514
Hancock103023
Auglaize95116
Putnam91527
Lawrence90725
Shelby86814
Muskingum8434
Geauga83650
Scioto8059
Belmont78427
Union7343
Ashtabula72148
Huron69910
Sandusky69422
Preble59517
Seneca58514
Holmes57010
Ottawa56830
Fulton5056
Jefferson4564
Henry45317
Defiance44413
Jackson4417
Clinton43613
Fayette4328
Crawford4308
Highland4024
Logan4023
Champaign3873
Ashland3735
Brown3683
Knox36215
Perry35411
Washington33323
Morrow3312
Hardin32113
Williams3194
Coshocton29812
Pike2880
Guernsey2878
Wyandot28413
Gallia27913
Van Wert2333
Meigs21012
Adams2036
Carroll1917
Paulding1901
Hocking1899
Monroe15218
Noble1210
Vinton903
Harrison793
Morgan740
Unassigned00
Fort Wayne
Overcast
54° wxIcon
Hi: 59° Lo: 50°
Feels Like: 54°
Angola
52° wxIcon
Hi: 58° Lo: 47°
Feels Like: 52°
Huntington
Overcast
55° wxIcon
Hi: 58° Lo: 52°
Feels Like: 55°
Decatur
Overcast
55° wxIcon
Hi: 60° Lo: 52°
Feels Like: 55°
Van Wert
Overcast
55° wxIcon
Hi: 61° Lo: 51°
Feels Like: 55°
Warmer Thursday
WFFT Radar
WFFT Temperatures
WFFT National

Community Events