Trump’s Support in the Supreme Court of his Travel Ban

Chapter 14 talks about the different types of courts and different levels of the court systems in America. There are many different levels in order to cater to specific needs of each state and also the nation as a whole. The Supreme Court is the highest level of the courts, and issues are often taken there when they are rejected or lost by the lower courts. The Supreme Court gets to decide which cases it takes on, and they base this decision on a whole range of factors. A couple of examples of influences are public opinion on the matter (if it is a really prominent issue and the public seems to be responding to it) and if the Justices themselves think that it is an important issue. Recently, a case has reached the courts regarding Trump’s travel ban for mostly Muslim countries. His third travel ban includes indefinite bans on people coming to America from the countries of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Chad. However, Chad was later dropped from the list of countries.

One aspect of this case that is interesting to me is who of the current members of the Justice department agreed on Trump’s ban and who opposed it. An article posted today about the ban, “Supreme Court to consider Trump’s travel ban” by Lydia Wheeler, goes into detail about the different justices and their opinions on the matter. In order for the new ban to pass, five members have to approve it. Two out of the three women justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both publicly announced that they would not have let the ban go into effect. There are two additional liberal justices, and while it is not clear whether they were opposed to it, it is thought that they were. The majority of the justices who seem to approve the new travel ban are rich, white, Republican men, just like Trump. Whether these men truly feel the same way Trump does about the situation or whether they are simply afraid of his power and the bad press he could cause them since he is currently more popular than the justices is a mystery. Like the book states, it is almost impossible to determine why one justice votes one way for one issue and the opposite for another issue. It all depends on what is at stake at the time.

Although the justices are becoming more diverse, I am wondering if the idea of the travel ban would have ever seen the light of day if all nine of the justices were in fact representative of our current population (race/ gender/ etc. wise) of our country. If it were representative, I personally do not think that the ban would pass. I think women and minorities, who are becoming a majority of the population as a group, would feel differently as a whole about the idea of travel bans on the people of these predominately Muslim countries. Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill, said, “Hawaii has a strong argument that Trump chose the countries he did specifically because they are predominantly Muslim.”

On Wednesday of the coming week, the Supreme Court will close out its arguments on Trump’s third attempt at this type of ban. If the justices were representative of the population, I am almost certain that it would not go in Trump’s favor, because the minorities of the justices, who in fact make up a large portion of our nation, were opposed to the idea of the ban. So, in this aspect, is our government working to fully represent the people? I’m not convinced.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/384209-supreme-court-to-consider-trumps-travel-ban

5 Responses to "Trump’s Support in the Supreme Court of his Travel Ban"

Isabella Brown says:

April 22, 2018 at 9:22 pm

Abigail,

Thank you for your post concerning the current Supreme Court Justices and the upcoming case about Trump’s travel ban. I agree strongly with you that our Supreme Court Justices are not representative of our population at large. One reason for this is due to the fact that Justices terms are for life, there are no pre-set term dates. I think that this needs to be changed so that the Justices can be held more accountable for their actions. It sometimes feels as though because they are in that position have no one to answer to because their position is guaranteed. Going off your point about which Justices will vote which way in the upcoming case, I think that a big part of these people’s decisions is based on appearance. They want to make it look like they are unified with whatever party they identify with, and so instead of voting based on what might be best for the country, it seems that they oftentimes just vote within the consensus of their party. It is frustrating because with issues like the Trump travel ban, the public could be feeling a certain way about it, but it almost feels like the Justices cannot or do not care about the public’s sentiments. I am interested to see what the outcome of the decision is this Wednesday and hopefully the Justices vote for what’s best for our country.
Gwynna Ryan says:

April 23, 2018 at 5:11 pm

Abigail,

Thank you for this post. As you point out, Supreme Court justices are not representative of the population. This is largely because they are appointed for life. Even the ratification process by the Senate is not about ensuring the nominated judge will represent the people or interpret the Constitution exactly how it is written. Rather it has become extremely important to ensure that the nominated judge will interpret the Constitution along the same party lines as the majority party in Congress. Is for this reason that when Justice Scalia died, President Obama did not nominate a replacement. Whoever was nominated likely wouldn’t have been ratified because Senate Republicans knew that they would have a better opportunity once President Trump was sworn in and the Republicans had firm control over the Senate. I think it also worth noting that the Supreme Court was never intended to be representative of the people. It’s purpose is to interpret the Constitution. In that sense, while it would be beneficial if the justices were more closely representative of the population, it is not a necessity. As far as its prescribed roles, the Supreme Court is still working.
Jacob Weis says:

April 25, 2018 at 11:38 am

Abigail,

I enjoyed reading this post. You raised some thoughtful points in regards to the supreme court justices not representing the population as a whole. When your job is not on the line it does not necessarily matter what your answer is. This is something that needs to be strongly reconsidered in my opinion. Many people are protesting trumps travel ban as it seems to be very discriminatory toward muslim locations. By restricting muslims from entering our country what are we really solving? “The Muslim ban offends freedom of religion, which is a protected right,” said Sked, who immigrated with her parents from Pakistan when she was a toddler and now lives in Virginia. “It hurts me because it is singling out and demeaning Muslims because of their faith.”
Hannah Grow says:

April 26, 2018 at 1:41 pm

Dear Abigail,

Thank you so much for this post on Trump’s travel ban and for calling into question exactly how representative of the population our Supreme Court really is. I recently read a New York Times article that outlined some of the most significant excerpts from the arguments presented to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The part of the arguments that stood out most to me was in regards to whether the courts had a right or a duty to second-guess the president, especially in regards to matters of national security. Mr. Katyal, who represented the opposition, argued that if they pass the order, it would be “giving the president a power no president in 100 years has exercised, an executive proclamation that countermands Congress’s policy judgements.” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy followed this asking “and your argument is that courts have the— the duty to review whether or not there is such a national contingency; thats for the courts to do, not the president?” I think Justice Kennedy poses a great question about exactly how much power the courts should have in determining, or in this case second-guessing, national security decisions. Would the courts be giving the President too much power? Or would the courts be overstepping their role? I believe that it is in the democracy’s best interest for the courts to second-guess the President in matters concerning national security, or anything for that matter, and it is for this reason that I argue the necessity of the Supreme Court to American democracy.
Sara Milano says:

April 27, 2018 at 11:29 pm

Abigail,

Your comment that “I am wondering if the idea of the travel ban would have ever seen the light of day if all nine of the justices were in fact representative of our current population (race/ gender/ etc. wise) of our country,” is really intriguing. Historically, the Supreme Court and government in general has represented majority and powerful interests of rich white males. The first woman was appointed to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O’Connor) in 1981, while the first black male (Thurgood Mashall) was appointed in 1967. There has never been a black woman appointed, nor a Muslim justice. The first Hispanic justice appointed was Sonya Sotomayor in 2009. This seems to reflect a misrepresentation of religions, races and genders on the Supreme Court and a bias against these populations. Muslim people especially need greater protection than ever against Trump’s extremely racist and non democratic Muslim ban. The constitution promises freedom of religion, and the Supreme Court should protect Muslims from discrimination.

Comments are closed.