Op-ed: Two wins for Trump

  • By Cal Thomas
  • Saturday, July 1, 2017 9:57pm
  • Opinion

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow portions of President Trump’s travel ban to proceed is a much-needed victory for the administration. The high court ruled that those “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” could be denied entry into the U.S. The ban targets those from six majority-Muslim countries, halting entry until “extreme vetting” can be conducted.

In doing so the unanimous court affirmed — at least temporarily, pending a full hearing on the case in the fall — a president’s constitutional authority to determine whether people seeking admittance to the U.S. pose a threat to our safety and security.

The court also handed down a second victory, striking a blow against the decades-long discrimination against religious institutions, which the courts have treated as separate and unequal. More about that in a moment.

At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, James Madison spoke to the heart of the immigration issue when he said the goal was “to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement and prosperity.” Do potential immigrants from the six nations meet this standard? That’s what the vetting hopes to discover.

Some key phrases in the court’s ruling will need further definition in the next court term. The court said that immigrants from these six countries will need a job offer, proof of admission to an educational program, or a close family connection in order to be exempt from the 90-day travel ban, or the overall 120-day immigration pause.

What constitutes a close family connection? Would first or second cousins qualify? Suppose a family member is already in the country, but on a terrorist watch list and his brother wants in? Would that be OK? What if the job offer is from a group with ties to terrorism? Would that undermine the purpose of the temporary ban?

Perhaps these questions will be sorted out when the court hears the full case. This decision is significant because it overturned lower court rulings, which had found even the president’s modified executive order unconstitutional based largely on his campaign rhetoric and not the Constitution. It offers hope that the delays will be upheld as a proper exercise of presidential authority.

The other case involved Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri, which applied for a grant from a state-run program to resurface their playground. Missouri denied the application saying that as a religious institution the church wasn’t entitled to state funds. The court ruled, however, that the state’s policy violated the church’s right to free exercise of its religion. Many believe the ruling could widen the legal understanding of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, which has taken a beating since the ’60s, beginning with the outlawing of prayer in public schools.

While especially conservative Christians will find much to celebrate in this ruling there are reasons to be cautious. Couldn’t radical Muslims use this case to appeal for taxpayer dollars to help build Islamic schools, even mosques?

Another caution should come from history. When taxpayer money is involved, the government frequently seeks to assert itself by regulation and the limitation of speech and activities that go against a secular worldview. In the end, the Lutheran school might have protected itself against such intrusions by raising the money privately.

Still, even with these caveats, the court’s two rulings mark a welcome setback to the open borders crowd and those secular progressives who view the expression of any religious view in the public square the way a vampire views a cross. It has been a curiosity of mine that some people believe using God’s name as a curse word is speech protected by the Constitution, while claiming the opposite when it comes to speaking well of the Deity at a commencement ceremony.

Perhaps the Justices will try to split that legal atom in a future ruling.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

More in Opinion

A silver salmon is weighed at Three Bears in Kenai, Alaska. Evelyn McCoy, customer service PIC at Three Bears, looks on. (Photo by Jeff Helminiak/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Will coho salmon be the next to disappear in the Kenai River?

Did we not learn anything from the disappearance of the kings from the Kenai River?

Jonathan Flora is a lifelong commercial fisherman and dockworker from Homer, Alaska.
Point of View: Not fishing for favors — Alaskans need basic health care access

We ask our elected officials to oppose this bill that puts our health and livelihoods in danger.

Alex Koplin. (courtesy photo)
Opinion: Public schools do much more than just teach the three Rs

Isn’t it worth spending the money to provide a quality education for each student that enters our schools?

Gov. Mike Dunleavy speaks to reporters at the Alaska State Capitol on Thursday, April 17, 2025. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter to the Editor: Law enforcement officers helped ensure smooth, secure energy conference

Their visible commitment to public safety allowed attendees to focus fully on collaboration, learning, and the important conversations shaping our path forward.

Laurie Craig / Juneau Empire file photo
The present-day KTOO public broadcasting building, built in 1959 for the U.S. Army’s Alaska Communications System Signal Corps, is located on filled tidelands near Juneau’s subport. Today vehicles on Egan Drive pass by the concrete structure with satellite dishes on the roof that receive signals from NPR, PBS and other sources.
My Turn: Stand for the community radio, not culture war optics

Alaskans are different and we pride ourselves on that. If my vehicle… Continue reading

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) delivers his annual speech to the Alaska Legislature on Thursday, March 20, 2025. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Sullivan, Trump and the rule of lawlessness

In September 2023, U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan established his own Alaska Federal… Continue reading

UAA Provost Denise Runge photographed outside the Administration and Humanities Building at the University of Alaskas Anchorage. (courtesy photo)
Opinion: UAA’s College of Health — Empowering Alaska’s future, one nurse at a time

At the University of Alaska Anchorage, we understand the health of our… Continue reading

U.S. Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, address a joint session of the Alaska Legislature on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: A noncongressman for Alaska?

It’s right to ask whether Nick Begich is a noncongressman for Alaska.… Continue reading

Boats return to the Homer Harbor at the end of the fishing period for the 30th annual Winter King Salmon Tournament on Saturday, March 23, 2024 in Homer, Alaska. (Delcenia Cosman/Homer News)
Opinion: Funding sustainable fisheries

Spring is always a busy season for Alaska’s fishermen and fishing communities.… Continue reading

Gov. Mike Dunleavy holds a press conference on Monday, May 19, 2025, to discuss his decision to veto an education bill. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: On fiscal policy, Dunleavy is a governor in name only

His fiscal credibility is so close to zero that lawmakers have no reason to take him seriously.

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski, speaks in support overriding Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s veto of House Bill 69 at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau, Alaska, on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (Mark Sabbatini/Juneau Empire)
Capitol Corner: Finishing a session that will make a lasting impact

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.