The attorneys from each side have presented their oral arguments to the Supreme Court about whether or not President Trump’s executive order banning travel, immigration and asylum seeking from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen to the USA will remain in place.
This is the third version of the ban, with the first attempt struck down by the courts for being unconstitutional and the second expiring last September. Unless the bench rules otherwise, this ban will be indefinite.
The state of Hawaii and several advocacy groups are arguing to have the ban overturned on the basis that it is, in effect, discriminatory against Muslims – which would be unconstitutional. This argument was successful against an earlier version of the ban, and uses Trump’s promise while campaigning institute a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering America as the cornerstone of the case.
The administration is arguing that the ban is necessary for national security. It also argues that as fewer than 8% of the world’s Muslims live in countries covered by the executive order it does not prevent Muslims from entering America. The inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela, which are not Islamic countries, is being used to support these arguments.
The administration also argues that even if Trump is personally inclined to discriminate against Muslims, the countries on the travel ban list are all there because of genuine security concerns. The administration seems to be on firmer ground with this version of the ban than they have ever been, and it would not be surprising for the Supreme Court to uphold the order.