*By Alisha Haridasani* The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s temporary ban on immigrants and refugees from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting the arguments that the policy went beyond presidential powers and discriminated against one religion. “The president has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him,” said Chief Justice John Roberts, [writing](http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/06/26/travel.ban.pdf) for the majority. The 5-4 ruling fell along partisan lines, and the difference between the two sides fundamentally boiled down to a close reading of the Constitution as it applied to the travel policy versus a broader approach to the case. "Certainly the conservative block of the Supreme Court was looking very narrowly at the president's power," said Joe Williams, senior news editor at U.S. News. "The opposing side was looking more at whether or not this was the right thing to do." The justices who dissented pointed to Trump's campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. as potentially motivating the policy, in which case it would be unlawful. “The United States of America is a nation built upon the promise of religious liberty,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a strongly-worded dissent. “The court’s decision today fails to safeguard that principle.” Judge Sotomayor even went so far as to compare Trump's policy to the internment of Japanese people during the second World War. But the majority of conservative judges concluded that the president's campaign rhetoric was irrelevant and didn't negate his right to determine immigration policies. The president responded jubilantly, describing the ruling as “a tremendous victory for the American people and for our Constitution.” Trump, in one of his first acts as commander-in-chief, signed an executive order last year that banned travel from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen for national security reasons. The policy, which many opponents perceived as thinly veiled religious bias, set off a national backlash and widespread protests. After two lower courts decided that the policy was both unconstitutional and [unlikely to protect the country](https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-full-text/index.html) from terrorism, the administration drew up a version that excluded Iraq and Sudan, added Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea, and contained waivers for green card holders or students. It didn't single out any religion in the text. A federal judge in Hawaii halted the implementation of that modified policy nationwide in October, and the Supreme Court ruling is related to that ruling. In December, the Supreme Court allowed the current version of the ban, weakened from its controversial initial form, to take effect while the case worked its way through the legal system. For the full segment, [click here.](https://cheddar.com/videos/scotus-upholds-trumps-travel-ban-2)

Share:
More In Politics
Addressing Arguments Against Student Debt Forgiveness as Biden Makes Changes
The Biden administration is making changes to federal student loan programs, bringing more than 3.6 million people closer to debt forgiveness under the new rules, providing 40,000 with immediate debt cancellation, and allowing several thousand more with older loans to get some relief. Rob Franek, Editor-In-Chief of the Princeton Review, joined Cheddar News to break down how these changes might impact the lives of student loan borrowers and addresses some of the pushback against doing even more. "This is not a bankruptcy bailout of industries that are supporting the American economy," he said. These are for students right now who would otherwise be hobbled financially if they didn't experience some sort of forgiveness overall."
Rights of Nature Says Nature Has Basic Rights to Exist
An increasing number of countries are recognizing "Rights of Nature", a legal movement that says ecosystems and species have basic rights to exist and flourish. Grant Wilson, executive director at Earth Law Center joins Cheddar News to explain what the movement is aiming to achieve.
House GOP Asks Twitter Board to Preserve Records of Elon Musk's Purchase Bid
The saga surrounding Elon Musk's bid to buy Twitter has made its way to Washington, DC. A group of 18 House Republicans are calling on the social media platform's board to preserve all records and documents related to the company's response to the offer from the Tesla CEO. Caleb Silver, editor in chief of Investopedia, joined Closing Bell to discuss. "This is a long term play, but it's just a shot across the bow by congressional Republicans, who probably will end up taking the House, that they're going to be tough on Big Tech and they're going use Musk's bid for twitter to take it private, so that he can get the platform to be open source and remove its censorship."
Autumn Peltier to Canada: Less Talk, More Action on Clean Water Access
Autumn Peltier, an indigenous water activist, joined Cheddar News to talk about the lack of access to clean water among indigenous communities in Canada. “I say the government to hold themselves accountable for the promises that they make because Canada and indigenous people have a long history of broken promises and they still continue to this day to keep breaking promises with the nation's people," she said. "Less talk and more action is very much expected from me."
USDA Partnering With Farmers to Promote Climate-Smart Commodities
Robert Bonnie, farm production and conservation undersecretary for the USDA, spoke to Cheddar about climate-smart strategies to help farmers reduce carbon emissions from agriculture. "We share the costs of installing those practices on their lands in ways that will protect the climate and maintain agricultural productivity, and we're also partnering with farmers to draw in private investment in greenhouse gas emissions reductions provided by agriculture and forestry," he said. The hope is to get farmers and ranchers to produce climate-smart commodities to lessen the impact of climate change.
Load More