President
Donald Trump’s administration went before the U.S.
Supreme Court on Wednesday to defend the legality of his
travel ban targeting people from several
Muslim-majority countries, one of the most contentious actions of his presidency.
The conservative-majority, nine-member court began hearing a scheduled hour of arguments in a challenge led by the state of Hawaii to Trump’s travel ban, which is the third version of a policy he first sought to implement a week after taking office in January 2017.
The policy blocks entry into the
United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Chad was on the list announced in September, but Trump removed it on April 10.
The conservative-majority, nine-member court has never heard arguments on the legal merits of the travel ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into the United States illegally as children.
It has previously acted on the Republican president’s requests to undo lower court orders blocking those two policies, siding with Trump on the travel ban and opposing him on the Dreamers.
A ruling is due by the end of June.
Democratic-governed Hawaii has argued that the travel ban violates federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another.
The Supreme Court on Dec. 4 signaled it may lean toward backing Trump when it granted on a 7-2 vote his administration’s request to let the ban go into full effect while legal challenges played out.
Trump has generated controversy with his hardline immigration policies, also including actions taken against states and cities that protect illegal immigrants, intensified deportation efforts and limits on legal immigration.
Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday cited the president’s “broad discretion and authority to protect the United States from all foreign and domestic threats.”
“President Trump determined this travel order is critical to protecting the American people,” Sessions said in statement.
About 150 people demonstrated against the travel ban outside the courthouse on a rainy morning in the U.S. capital. Seema Sked, 39, stood before the court’s plaza with a homemade sign that read, “Proud American Muslim.”
“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.”
The challengers have argued the policy was motivated by Trump’s enmity toward Muslims, pressing that point in lower courts with some success by citing statements he made as a candidate and as president. As a candidate, Trump promised “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
The Justice Department argues Trump’s statements as a candidate carry no weight because he was not yet president.
In defending the ban, the administration has also pointed to a waiver provision allowing people from targeted countries to seek entry if they meet certain criteria.
Venezuela and North Korea also were targeted in the travel ban. Those restrictions were not challenged in court.