US Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban

This week the US Supreme Court voted to uphold the administration's policy of  banning nationals and citizens from largely Muslim countries from entering the United States. As you may recall, as soon as President Trump took office, he immediately implemented this policy but was rebuffed by the lower federal courts in subsequent legal actions. What was litigated before the Supreme Court was the third iteration of the ban which, for all intents and purposes, has recognized the presidential power of determining the immigration policies, as delegated by Congress.

In what is considered to be major legal and political victory for the president, this victory at the Supreme Court reinforces his belief that his administration has the unbridled power to enforce immigration law never mind how cruel or inhuman it is for others, as in the case of his zero tolerance policy. This decision also enables him to make the claim to his voter base that he is fulfilling his campaign promises never mind how unpopular or controversial they may be.

What then is the effect of this moving forward? This decision only emboldens hardliners who will continue to push for even tougher immigration policies in other aspects including limiting employment-based legal immigration, ending chain migration, dissolving the visa lottery system and a pathway for legalization of Dreamers.

Keep in mind that this ruling was also decided along party lines. Five Republican appointed justices went in favor of the ban against four liberal and Democratic appointed magistrates. One of the five, Justice Anthony Kennedy is always considered the swing vote as in previous decisions, his vote could either be on the conservative or on the liberal side. You may interpret it as a coup de grace, but in a stunning development that shocked the Democrats, Justice Kennedy announced his retirement from the US Supreme Court effective July 31. This leaves Mr. Trump the golden opportunity to appoint a reliable conservative justice who would undoubtedly alter the jurisprudential landscape of the country for generations to come.

This column is not a substitute for professional legal advice obtained from a US-licensed immigration attorney. The information contained herein does not constitute a warranty or guarantee or legal advice regarding a reader's specific immigration case. No attorney-client relationship is and shall be established with any reader.

For any questions, comments and observations, please contact Atty. Marco Tomakin at [email protected]