Attorneys for the Department of Justice are at the Supreme Court today defending President Trump's travel ban on individuals from a number of terror ridden countries. Oral arguments will be presented in Trump v. Hawaii.
First, some background from SCOTUSblog:
The government contends that a ruling for the challengers would “hamstring” the president’s ability to conduct foreign relations and protect the national security; the challengers counter that allowing the so-called “travel ban” to stand will not only preclude over 150 million people, overwhelmingly Muslim, from coming to the United States, but it will also consolidate “breathtakingly vast” power in the executive branch.
The focus of the case is the order that Trump issued in September 2017, which limited travel from eight countries: Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela and Chad. That order followed two orders that are not directly before the Supreme Court next week, but that are also likely to play important roles in the oral argument.
"President Trump has been steadfast in his commitment to the safety and security of all Americans. The Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad discretion and authority to protect the United States from all foreign and domestic threats," Sessions said in a statement. "After multiple agency heads conducted a comprehensive, worldwide review of foreign governments’ information-sharing practices and other risk factors, President Trump determined this travel order is critical to protecting the American people. We look forward to defending the order’s lawfulness today in the Supreme Court."
Opponents and challengers to Trump's order are still arguing it is a ban on Muslims, despite the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries being left off the list.
When we said #NoMuslimBanEVER, we meant it. https://t.co/pOcwL7NvOD
— ACLU (@ACLU) April 25, 2018