Thread by @HNIJohnMiller

1) SCOTUS Decision on the #TravelBan; 5-4. WIN.

Chief Justice Roberts delivers the opinion; interestingly, Gorsuch does not write a concurring opinion. Dude had been writing up a storm. Kennedy and Thomas both write concurring, Breyer and Sotomayor both file dissenting opinions

2) The opinion itself supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf…

3) Held: "The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States." BOOM.

4) "By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in
every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and
when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on
what conditions."

5) "The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find” that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here."

6) SUCK IT HAWAII

7) "He first ordered DHS and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline." The setup

8) "He then issued a Proclamation with extensive findings about the deficiencies and their impact. Based on that review, he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest." The punchline.

9) Basically, Trump played his cards exactly right in having the review, THEN issuing the #TravelBan. He was playing directly into the wording of the INA which granted him these powers.

10) "Even assuming that some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of the President’s findings is appropriate, plaintiffs’ attacks on the sufficiency of the findings cannot be sustained." IE, no, screaming and kicking doesn't suffice as a challenge to the #TravelBan

11) "The 12-page Proclamation is more detailed than any prior order issued under §1182(f)." HAH. BIGGER AND BETTER. "And such a searching inquiry is inconsistent with the broad statutory text and the deference traditionally accorded the President in this sphere."

12) That last bit there is basically stating that the law gives the president the ability to make such judgement calls, and that complaining about his reasoning is not a sufficient reason to deny him the powers granted to him by Congress.

13) "The Proclamation comports with the remaining textual limits in §1182(f). While the word “suspend” often connotes a temporary deferral, the President is not required to prescribe in advance a fixed end date for the entry restriction." OH SNAP.

14) Basically, Trump's #TravelBan IS NOT REQUIRED to have an end date.

15) " Plaintiffs have not identified any conflict between the Proclamation and the immigration scheme reflected in the INA that would implicitly bar the President from addressing deficiencies in the Nation’s vetting system." The plaintiffs never said what's illegal about the ban.

16) "The existing grounds of inadmissibility and the narrow Visa Waiver Program do not address the failure of certain high-risk countries to provide a minimum baseline of reliable information." SCOTUS agrees with Trump's reasoning. BOOM.

17) "Plaintiffs’ argument that the President’s entry suspension violates §1152(a)(1)(A) ignores the basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the INA." I sense a bitchslap coming.

18) "Had Congress intended to constrain the President’s power to determine who may enter the country it could have chosen language directed to that end. Common sense and historical practice confirm that §1152(a)(1)(A) does not limit the President’s delegated authority."

19) "And on plaintiffs’ reading, the President would not be permitted to suspend entry from particular foreign states in response to an epidemic, or even if the United States were on the brink of war."

20) "Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits of their claim that the Proclamation violates the Establishment
Clause." IE, the claim that it was a Muslim Ban, SCOTUS just said fuck no to that.

21) "Plaintiffs allege that the primary purpose of the Proclamation was religious animus and that the President’s stated concerns about vetting protocols and national security were but pretexts for discriminating against Muslims."

22) IE, 'THEY SAID RACIST THINGS, SO THE ORDER MUST BE RACIST!'

23) "The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the President’s statements, but the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility" OH FUCK

24) "In doing so, the Court must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself." This might be HUGE. SCOTUS may have just laid down a ruling that states that campaign statements and public statements...

25) ...can't be used in court against actions that fall within the scope of the Executive Branch's responsibilities!

26) "On the few occasions where the Court has struck down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny a common thread has been that the laws at issue were divorced from any factual context from which the Court could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests”

27) "The Proclamation does not fit that pattern. It is expressly premised on legitimate purposes and says nothing about religion." HAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

28) I'll try to find time to do the opinions later, but for right now, the best quote of all: "878 F. 3d 662, reversed and remanded."

SUCK IT HAWAII

/end