On June 26th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released their decision on the Administration’s request to lift the injunction placed by two lower Courts on the “Travel Ban” (Executive Order 13780 referred to from here on as “EO2”). The Court’s decision was to remove the injunction for most provisions of the “Ban” and to agree to hear the case in full this Fall. Of great interest is how EO2, the injunction, and the SCOTUS decision were first reported and then subsequently interpreted by the media. The reporting provides an excellent example of how clever the media can be in shaping and obfuscating the true nature of a story. EO2 was proclaimed by the media and the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts to pose imminent harm to US citizens and institutions and to embody religious discrimination of the most heinous kind.
Reporting on the SCOTUS decision presented a special challenge for journalists and commentators who were predisposed to bias, because the ultimate authoritative text on the topic – that produced by the Court itself – was already online in reasonably straightforward language for anyone to read. For those wanting to find a source for “real” news unadulterated by biased media outlets, this is as good as it gets.
Here are a few key facts about this decision. To begin with, it was a unanimous 9-0 decision, which means that even the four liberal Judges on the court agreed with the outcome. Second, while there was a dissenting opinion “in part” from three of the Judges, their dissent was that the Court did not go far enough and entirely remove the injunction. Third, the court agreed to hear arguments for this case in the Fall term with the knowledge that the Travel Ban would have run its complete course by then1. Last, the meat of the 16-page opinion is on pages 9-13. This part is clearly written and can be easily digested in about 10 minutes. Those familiar with the history can skip directly to this section of the ruling. Most of the rest of the opinion recounts the history of the two Executive Orders in question and prior rulings on them from lower courts up to that point. There is also a separate 3-page opinion written by Justice Thomas.
Contrary to our interpretation of the decision as “lifting” parts of the lower Courts’ injunction, the press instead characterized the decision as “upholding” parts of the injunction. The difference in word choice here reveals the classic glass half-empty/half-full bias. SCOTUS’s own words on this point are thus – We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c)2 with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The ruling goes on to give excellent specific examples of what a bona fide relationship is, at least to any reasoned interpretation. Despite this, there will surely be plenty of “unreasoned” interpretations of this part of the ruling by critics looking to invent “confusion” (the current media buzzword for this case) where there is none. The press ignores the fact that EO2 already includes similar definitions of the same bona-fide exceptions outlined in the SCOTUS decision (Section 3c of EO2). In fact, EO2 went even further in anticipating odd relationship cases that might arise and provided for general case-by-case waivers to be granted. Looked at this way, EO2 has now gone into effect “nearly entirely”, versus “only partially” as characterized in the press3.
The Administration’s reason for the temporary Travel Ban is to preserve National Security. It has nothing at all to do with religion – this allegation is a false narrative propelled by Democrats and the media. The SCOTUS decision affirmed the higher equity of protecting the nation verses harm brought to any foreign national not part of a bona-fide relationship within the US. To quote the decision: The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c)2 against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else.
Intriguingly, with the exception of a scant few days following the SCOTUS ruling, the former clamor of the media with regards to the injustice of the “Travel Ban” has been replaced with silence. The “Ban” went into effect last Thursday evening without a whimper or bang, despite dire predictions of chaos. The media has instead turned its lofty attentions to Twitter wars and uneducated speculations about the President’s mental state. The media yet again sounds a strident claxon admonishing us that an Administration-provoked National “crisis” is imminent. Once more, the media’s message proves to be a fabricated narrative without basis in reality.
Note: A previous post of ours, Borderline Hysteria, is a “prequel” of sorts to this post. It was written when the first Travel Ban (EO1) was enacted in February of this year.
1Possible reasons for SCOTUS agreeing to hear arguments on this case in October, after the temporary “Travel Ban” will have run its course are:
- To set precedent for any future such bans by this or any future Administration.
- To again review the merits of the ban should the Administration decide to continue its enforcement beyond the stated 90/120 day time limits stated in EO2.
2“§2C” in the SCOTUS ruling is the part of EO2 referring to the suspension of entry to the US of foreign nationals from six countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
3EO2 also included a provision to cap the total number of refugees admitted to the US in fiscal year 2017 to 50,000. Despite the fact that EO2 has been tied up in the courts and suspended for nearly 4 months, it appears this original goal of the Administration will still be met. Other actions of the Administration, including more rigorous vetting, have resulted in just under 49,000 refugees being admitted to the US so far this fiscal year. With the SCOTUS ruling, that number is now not likely to increase much more before the end of FY17. This result has been largely ignored by the media.