Conservative US Supreme Court justices signalled they are likely to uphold President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries.
Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing vote on the conservative-majority, nine-member court, indicated unwillingness to second-guess the president on the national security justifications offered for the policy.
Trump has said the travel ban - the third version of a policy he first sought to implement a week after taking office in January 2017 - is needed to protect the US from terrorism by Islamic militants. The current travel ban, announced in September, prohibits entry into the US of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.
The challengers, led by the state of Hawaii, have argued the policy was motivated by Trump's enmity towards Muslims and that it violates federal immigration law and the US Constitution's prohibition on the government favouring one religion over another.
Liberal justices indicated sympathy towards Hawaii's arguments.
But conservative Justice Samuel Alito said the text of Trump's proclamation announcing the ban "does not look at all like a Muslim ban".
Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes joins the liberals in major rulings, pushed back on the notion pressed by the challengers that the ban was permanent, noting that the policy includes a requirement for ongoing reports that could potentially lead to the removal of a targeted country.
Trump's own conservative appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, suggested that the lawsuits challenging the ban brought by Hawaii and others should not have been considered by courts in the first place.
Referring to statements Trump made during his campaign for president such as calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", Trump administration lawyer Noel Francisco said those should be off-limits for courts to scrutinise because he was not the president at the time.
In the first half of the argument, Kennedy did signal that courts should be able to review words from candidates from the campaign trail. Kennedy gave the example of a local mayor who makes discriminatory statements and then two days after taking office acts on them.
"You're saying that everything he said is irrelevant?" Kennedy asked Francisco.
Liberal justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor pressed Francisco on what kind of campaign trail behaviour could be considered by courts. Kagan asked whether a hypothetical vehemently anti-Semitic candidate would be subject to court review if upon taking office he announced policies targeting Israel.
Would the president's national security rationale suffice, she asked, "even if in his heart of hearts he harboured animus?"
The court is due to issue a ruling by the end of June.
Share
