Tags

, , , ,

A year to the date after the temporary affirmance, the Supreme Court found the President still has the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration as determined by law.

THE FULL OPINION

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign
nationals seeking entry into the United States undergo a
vetting process to ensure that they satisfy the numerous
requirements for admission. The Act also vests the President
with authority to restrict the entry of aliens whenever
he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the
interests of the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1182(f). Relying
on that delegation, the President concluded that it was
necessary to impose entry restrictions on nationals of
countries that do not share adequate information for an
informed entry determination, or that otherwise present
national security risks. Presidential Proclamation No.
9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017) (Proclamation). The
plaintiffs in this litigation, respondents here, challenged
the application of those entry restrictions to certain aliens
abroad. We now decide whether the President had authority
under the Act to issue the Proclamation, and whether
the entry policy violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.

Under these circumstances, the Government has set
forth a sufficient national security justification to survive
rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness
of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs
have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits of their constitutional claim.

Trump v. Hawaii, 17-965, 585 U. S. ____, at Slip 6 … 43 (June 26, 2018).

This is a major victory for the administration and a blow for the people of the US, if any now – it’s kind of late, who do not desire a new civil conflagration.

Screenshot 2018-06-26 at 12.30.41 PM

Advertisements