SHOP
Watch LIVE
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of President Trump's immigration restriction order, which opponents have labeled a "Muslim ban."
The Trump administration has released three versions of an immigration moratorium on immigration from Islamic nations that are known hotbeds of terrorist activity.
The Supreme Court agreed that the president has broadstatutory authority to restrict immigration to the United States, citing legitimate national security concerns.
Opponents of the order characterized the immigration moratorium as a ban singling out Muslims immigrants for discrimination. However, the version of the ban questioned before the court affected Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, not Muslims at large. A Muslim immigrant from many other Muslim majority nations — excluding those five countries — would be permitted into the U.S.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Roberts said the president's order falls "squarely" within his authority.
"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts explained. "The text says nothing about religion."
CR's Nate Madden and Daniel Horowitz weighed in on social media with their own analysis of the Supreme Court decision:
Let's not forget, in some ways, the lower courts already won. They forced Trump to water it down twice and now that… https://t.co/ctb3OJdZkE— Daniel Horowitz (@Daniel Horowitz) 1530023041.0
Boom!: Thomas once again, with the categorical approach: " Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicial… https://t.co/wcKmOpjLhF— Daniel Horowitz (@Daniel Horowitz) 1530023111.0
More Thomas concurrence: "The plaintiffs cannot raise any other First Amendment claim, since the alleged… https://t.co/zFYERMBZOA— Daniel Horowitz (@Daniel Horowitz) 1530023207.0
Thomas then goes after the growing trend of nationwide injunctions: " District courts, including the one here, ha… https://t.co/4ELYRpolPo— Daniel Horowitz (@Daniel Horowitz) 1530023273.0
If you want to know the constitutional view on sovereignty, start with Thomas's concurrence. Everything else misses the mark.— Daniel Horowitz (@Daniel Horowitz) 1530023308.0
That we have 4 justices who dont believe in any sovereignty whatsoever is insane.— Daniel Horowitz (@Daniel Horowitz) 1530024816.0
Hot dang Justice Thomas has his dander up today. On Travel Order case: "I am skeptical that district courts have th… https://t.co/5zleoAvuqY— Nate Madden (@Nate Madden) 1530023672.0
" ... And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III… https://t.co/qMeOlGuVUJ— Nate Madden (@Nate Madden) 1530023730.0
Basically, a lot of conservatives kicked up dust about the power of district court judges to effectively nullify PO… https://t.co/R2zef5ZZDH— Nate Madden (@Nate Madden) 1530023811.0
#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px;}
/* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */
