We'll have to await the conclusion of the review process before we can celebrate anything, but things are certainly looking good. Whether or not this truly amounts to a "Muslim ban" is debatable, but Trump didn't help his case by campaigning on the promise of a Muslim ban. Now any proposal to limit travel or migration from a Muslim majority nation will be immediately viewed as a ban on persons of the Islamic faith, which is exactly the perception the courts and American public should maintain.
Absolutely not , unless it has religious exemptions the order is not a religious ban and it should not be overturned.
The intended target of the ban is implicit in the law by its application solely to Muslim-majority countries. If this ban was truly intended to target countries that are exporters of alleged terrorists, then why does it not even include Saudi Arabia - the home of numerically and proportionally more terrorists than any other? If we cannot trust the law to include the country most responsible for terrorism, including those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, then how can we trust that it's stated purpose is its actual objective?
judges are only supposed to look at letter of the order not perceived intent .
The President has large majorities, if he wants a travel ban, he can make a law. This didn't work with Obama and it won't work now.
That's what I was thinking as well, which also makes me wonder why the 1965 statute wasn't used as the meat of the case against it as opposed to the "Muslim ban" angle.
