Bad news from the Supreme Court, via WaPo:
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to allow a limited version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, and will consider in the fall the president’s broad powers in immigration matters in a case that raised fundamental issues of national security and religious discrimination.
The court made an important exception: it said the ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
The court also said in the ruling that it would consider whether the case will be moot by the time it hears it; the ban is supposed to be a temporary one while the government reviews its vetting procedures.
The action means that the administration may impose a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States, with the exceptions noted by the court.
Team Trump said the 90-day ban was necessary to allow the administration to put its “extreme vetting” policies in place. At this point, 156 days have elapsed since the shitgibbon was sworn in, so it makes no sense logically to impose the ban now.
But this was never about logic or sound security policy; it was about codifying anti-Muslim bigotry to please Trump and his xenophobic, anti-Muslim base. Mission accomplished.
The Supreme Court will also hear a public accommodation case in the fall. Again, WaPo:
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider next term whether a Denver baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.
Lower courts had ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had violated Colorado’s public accommodations law, which prohibits refusing service to customers based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
There are similar lawsuits from florists, calligraphers and others who say their religious beliefs won’t allow them to provide services for same-sex weddings. But they have found little success in the courts, which have ruled that public businesses must comply with state anti-discrimination laws.
I’m not a lawyer, but the fact that the Supreme Court will hear this case at all strikes me as ominous. It’s an opportunity for people who use religion to justify their bigotry to get cover of law to exercise their prejudice. Of course, in the best case scenario, gay folks’ full equality could be upheld, but why is it in question?
Interested to hear from our legal beagles on these issues.