Justice Roberts, on p. 13 of his decision, says the president is not required to prove that his travel ban is a useful security measure or that it makes any sense. The law gave the president broad authority to do what he says is best for national security. supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf…
This is important to note, and it's true of many laws: Congress, especially from the Cold War onward, has given the president broad authority to decide a variety of national security matters, up to and including the destruction of the planet.
Challenges to the law said the president's national security power was limited by a different law, stating "no person shall . . . be discriminated against" for a visa due to "race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” Roberts writes that doesn't apply here.
Roberts writes (p.33) the court might overturn an act if it lacks "any purpose other than a 'bare . . .desire to harm a politically unpopular group.'" Does the travel ban have any other purpose? Roberts notes the president said it was for national security.
Roberts notes the plaintiffs say the policy "does little to serve national security interests. But we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters." We circle back to the president's authority to decide national security matters.
In a remarkable passage, Roberts notes POTUS has "extraordinary
power" to speak on America's behalf. He lists past presidents who spoke up for American "principles of religious freedom and tolerance." But then he notes that many presidents have followed these words "unevenly."
power" to speak on America's behalf. He lists past presidents who spoke up for American "principles of religious freedom and tolerance." But then he notes that many presidents have followed these words "unevenly."
In dissent, Sotomayor says Roberts' opinion "does not even tell half the story...The full record paints a far more harrowing picture, from which a reasonable observer would readily conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by hostility
and animus toward the Muslim faith."
and animus toward the Muslim faith."
Sotomayor notes that, just as the court upheld Japanese internment in World War Two, the court allowed the government to invoke "an ill-defined "national security
threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion."
threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion."
Sotomayor notes that President Trump himself, as a candidate, compared his Muslim travel ban to Japanese internment, saying on TV that Franklin D. Roosevelt "did the same thing."
Accused of ruling as the Court infamously did in 1944, Justice Roberts says the cases are different. Japanese-American internment was different than denying "certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission."
Roberts also takes the precaution of declaring the Court ruling that upheld Japanese-American internment "gravely wrong" and unconstitutional. As if to preempt the possibility that some president who favors the 1944 ruling might use it to justify his next national security moves.
Still thinking of Roberts p. 28-29, quoting presidents from Washington (US gives "bigotry no sanction") to Eisenhower ("America will fight with her whole strength" for Muslim right to worship) to GW Bush (telling Muslims "we share the same values.")
