What we’re reading: the Supreme Court and the Muslim ban

This week, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would review the Muslim and refugee bans issued by President Trump and blocked by lower courts. The ruling also allowed part of the ban to go into effect. Here's what we’re reading to learn more:


SCOTUS approves Trump's 'Muslim Ban', by Kenrya Rankin via Colorlines

"SCOTUS issued an unsigned opinion that partially lifts the injunctions affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and discriminatory. The high court also agreed to hear the federal government's argument that the president has the power to set sweeping immigration policy."


Supreme Court’s Muslim ban decision sparks anger from refugee advocates, by E.A. Crunden via Think Progress

"A record 65.6 million people are currently displaced worldwide, many of whom are fleeing the six countries singled out by the ban. Syria is among the most dangerous — the nation’s ongoing civil war has led to massive internal displacement, along with more than 5 million refugees currently seeking asylum elsewhere."


Why the Supreme Court's travel ban ruling may not be a win for Trump, by Sabrina Siddiqui via The Guardian

"Noting that at least five justices agreed on the need to grant visas to individuals with a 'credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,' Gordon argued that the court's decision reflected a seemingly majority consensus that the Trump administration could not implement an outright ban on immigrants from the six-Muslim majority countries.

'In fact, you might read it as a signal … that the president might well lose on this,' she said."


Gorsuch leans far right in Muslim ban case, by Marjorie Cohn via Truthout

"During the Bush administration, the high court told the executive he could not deny Guantánamo detainees their right to habeas corpus. But the Court held during the Obama administration that people could be charged with providing material support for terrorism even if one purpose of the charity to which they donated supported humanitarian work.

Gorsuch's joinder with Thomas and Alito in allowing Trump to fully implement his Muslim ban portends the new justice's strong deference to the executive."


 "What We're Reading" is a weekly feature on AFSC’s News and Commentary blog, where we share a curated collection of recent articles on timely issues. "What We're Reading" is meant to spark discussion, debate, and knowledge sharing, and the articles we highlight do not necessarily reflect the official organizational positions of AFSC. We encourage you to tell us what you're reading on these issues in the comments below.