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! 

Car culture and suburban sprawl create rifts in society, claims study

New research links urban planning and political polarization.

Politics & Current Affairs
  • Canadian researchers find that excessive reliance on cars changes political views.
  • Decades of car-centric urban planning normalized unsustainable lifestyles.
  • People who prefer personal comfort elect politicians who represent such views.
Keep reading Show less

Scientists reverse hair loss by making scalp "smell" sandalwood

It turns out the human scalp has an olfactory receptor that seems to play a crucial role in regulating hair follicle growth and death.

Photo: malehmann via Flickr
Surprising Science
  • Scientists treated scalp tissue with a chemical that mimics the odor of sandalwood.
  • This chemical bound to an olfactory receptor in the scalp and stimulated hair growth.
  • The treatment could soon be available to the public.
Keep reading Show less

NASA astronomer Michelle Thaller on ​the multiple dimensions of space and human sexuality

Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.

Flickr / 13winds
Think Again Podcasts
  • Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
  • What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
  • Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
Keep reading Show less