ORAL arguments at the Supreme Court often make for excellent theatre: an hour of well-prepared lawyers clashing over an issue fundamental to American democracy,lashed by questions from cruel justices sitting a few feet away. That is what visitors to the Supreme Court are likely to see on April 25th, when the court convenes to hear Trump v Hawaii, or the final case of the nine-month term. The justices will consider an uncommonly fraught matter of presidential power: whether the third version of Donald Trumps restrictions on travel from primarily Muslim countries is consistent with the law and the structure.
The challengers argue that Mr Trump’s latest travel ban is a direct descendant of his campaign-trail calls for a "total and total shutdown" of Muslims entering America "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on”. Singling out members of one religion for particularly burdensome treatment based on a hunch that they may be terrorists violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,the Fourth...
Continue reading
Source: economist.com