The justices grilled the travel ban's opponents over their charge that it is unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in President Donald Trump v. Hawaii, the case regarding his travel ban. By most indications, it appeared to go well for Trump, unlike in lower courts, which mendaciously struck it down. The case against the travel ban presented by Neal Katyal, the attorney representing Hawaii, rested on the dishonest argument that Trump intended it as a ban against Muslims, making it unconstitutional. The High Court’s conservative justices saw through the charade.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the Trump administration, astutely noted that of the eight countries barred under the travel ban, only six of them are Muslim-majority nations. In fact, he said, “The vast majority of the world, including the vast majority of the Muslim world,” was not included in the ban. Francisco added, “It would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine, since not only does it exclude the vast majority of the Muslim world, it also omits three Muslim-majority countries that were covered by past orders.”
Justice Samuel Alito appeared to agree with Francisco and pointed out that Trump’s executive order affected only 8% of the world’s Muslim population. “If you look at what was done,” Alito said, “it does not look at all like a Muslim ban.”