Supreme Court ruling upholds Trump's travel ban

"We express no view on the soundness of the policy," Justice Roberts wrote in the Trump v. Hawaii Supreme Court ruling.

The Trump-Pence ban on travel from select countries, mostly majority-Muslim ones, has been ruled as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court today, in Hawaii V. Trump. It was a 5-4 vote by the conservative majority.

What was the case about?

It starts with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the clause known as the Establishment Clause, which reads in part:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Previous cases have established that it means one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.

A view of the Supreme Court at dusk, January 31, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

That kind of goes to the heart of the ruling today; the plaintiffs in this case stated that President Trump's travel ban, as first made clear in his campaign material, strongly indicates a preferred religion over another. That is, a strong anti-Muslim bias. 

In fact, Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on." 

As we all know, what followed almost immediately after he was elected is a ban on travel from seven predominately Muslim countries. The list has changed after the first permutation of the travel ban happened, and it now includes Yemen, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, Chad and Venezuela.

However, in classic fashion, Trump changed his words when drafting the proclamation to focus on "danger" rather than religion, claiming the ban was to prevent terrorists from entering our country.

What created the 5-4 decision today was that the plaintiffs sought to "invalidate the national security directive regulating the entry of aliens abroad."

Front row from left, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, back row from left, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In other words, plaintiffs claimed that the ban violates the free expression of religion, and that the national security component of the ban was a facade.

But the Supremes disagreed. "National security" instead of "ban all Muslims" as a basis for the proclamation worked, at least in this case.  

A statement from the Human Rights Campaign was issued in response. It reads "Make no mistake: this is an unnecessary and dangerous ban against Muslims that recklessly puts lives in danger and undermines civil liberties in this country,” said HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen to uphold what is clearly a xenophobic effort that scapegoats persons of a particular faith, threatens the safety of human beings seeking refuge, encourages violence and discrimination against Muslim Americans, and does nothing to keep all Americans safer."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan (who wrote their own, separate dissent): 

"The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle."

She continued, "a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus." 

The American Civil Liberties Union weighed in as well, with a Tweet:

However, there is at least another week left in the docket of the Supreme Court, so there could be further rulings about this. Stay tuned! 

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Why 'upgrading' humanity is a transhumanist myth

Upload your mind? Here's a reality check on the Singularity.

  • Though computer engineers claim to know what human consciousness is, many neuroscientists say that we're nowhere close to understanding what it is, or its source.
  • Scientists are currently trying to upload human minds to silicon chips, or re-create consciousness with algorithms, but this may be hubristic because we still know so little about what it means to be human.
  • Is transhumanism a journey forward or an escape from reality?
Keep reading Show less

Steven Pinker's 13 rules for writing better

The Harvard psychologist loves reading authors' rules for writing. Here are his own.

NEW YORK, NY - JULY 21: Steven Pinker speaks onstage during OZY Fest 2018 at Rumsey Playfield, Central Park on July 21, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Brad Barket/Getty Images for Ozy Media)
Personal Growth
  • Steven Pinker is many things: linguist, psychologist, optimist, Harvard professor, and author.
  • When it comes to writing, he's a student and a teacher.
  • Here's are his 13 rules for writing better, more simply, and more clearly.
Keep reading Show less

Dead – yes, dead – tardigrade found beneath Antarctica

A completely unexpected discovery beneath the ice.

(Goldstein Lab/Wkikpedia/Tigerspaws/Big Think)
Surprising Science
  • Scientists find remains of a tardigrade and crustaceans in a deep, frozen Antarctic lake.
  • The creatures' origin is unknown, and further study is ongoing.
  • Biology speaks up about Antarctica's history.
Keep reading Show less