Opinion: SCOTUS made the right ruling in travel ban case
WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) - The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it upheld President Trump’s authority to pause travel from certain countries to the U.S. in the interest of national security.
This specific case, Trump v. Hawaii, was based on the third version of the travel policy. The countries on the restricted list are Iran, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, North Korea and Venezuela.
The restrictions on these countries are based on whether they comply with security protocols, which includes sharing information on terrorism or taking precautions to prevent terror attacks.
The policy is fluid, fair and compliance-based. For example, Chad was on this list, but when it made necessary changes, it was taken off.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion for this case. He said said that the ban fell within “the scope of presidential authority”
This is a long line of executive power rulings that state that the president has the right to protect national security.
The challengers in this case were attempting to use the Supreme Court as a tool against the president, but their arguments were not really based in law.
I applaud the Supreme Court for upholding the honor of the bench and producing a decision based on interpretation of the law, and not based on activism.
Here is the bottom line: this is an example of how checks and balances are supposed to work in our country. The decision ignores activist judges who seek to legislate from the bench.
Politically, this decision will strengthen the hand of the president and congressional Republicans headed into the midterm elections. Most importantly, it ensures that going forward our chief executives will be able to protect our country.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Boris Epshteyn formerly served as a Senior Advisor to the Trump Campaign and served in the White House as Special Assistant to The President and Assistant Communications Director for Surrogate Operations.