Peter1469
12-12-2015, 04:02 PM
Would SCOTUS uphold Trump's immigration plan? Yes. No. It depends on who you ask.
Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigrants would violate international law, but the U.S. Supreme Court would likely uphold it anyway, according to several legal experts. Others, however, believed the court could rely on the First and Fifth amendments to strike it down.
Donald Trump’s plan—as clarified by him on Tuesday—would ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States, but not Muslim U.S. citizens who want to re-enter the country after foreign travel, the New York Times (http://nyti.ms/1OPbQI3) reports. That clarification may eliminate constitutional objections, several experts told the newspaper.
Trump’s plan violates a treaty ratified by the United States, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Times explains. It bars discrimination on the basis of religion against all persons, not just citizens. But Congress has not made the treaty enforceable in U.S. courts, so it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would invalidate a Muslim immigrant ban on that basis, experts told the Times.
Several experts also thought the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold the ban because of courts’ deferential approach in the area of immigration law, according to the Times, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/12/08/is-trumps-proposed-ban-on-muslim-entry-constitutional/), and a New York Times op-ed (http://nyti.ms/1SMWBOV) by Temple University law professor Peter Spiro.
Read more at the link.
Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigrants would violate international law, but the U.S. Supreme Court would likely uphold it anyway, according to several legal experts. Others, however, believed the court could rely on the First and Fifth amendments to strike it down.
Donald Trump’s plan—as clarified by him on Tuesday—would ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States, but not Muslim U.S. citizens who want to re-enter the country after foreign travel, the New York Times (http://nyti.ms/1OPbQI3) reports. That clarification may eliminate constitutional objections, several experts told the newspaper.
Trump’s plan violates a treaty ratified by the United States, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Times explains. It bars discrimination on the basis of religion against all persons, not just citizens. But Congress has not made the treaty enforceable in U.S. courts, so it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would invalidate a Muslim immigrant ban on that basis, experts told the Times.
Several experts also thought the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold the ban because of courts’ deferential approach in the area of immigration law, according to the Times, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/12/08/is-trumps-proposed-ban-on-muslim-entry-constitutional/), and a New York Times op-ed (http://nyti.ms/1SMWBOV) by Temple University law professor Peter Spiro.
Read more at the link.