From the New York Times are Michael Barbara. This is the daily today the Supreme Court upholds President Trump's travelled and predominantly muslim countries. What that tells us about the death of the president's power over immigration it's Wednesday June? Twenty sub item of Jack, what was the fundamental question that the Supreme Court was deciding on Tuesday? The super for it was considering whether president from had the lawful authority to do something. He'd long wanted to do spoke about on the campaign. Trail got OJ. Chop is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims during the United States are jail

Countries representatives can figure out what the hell is going on, which was to impose restrictions on travel from a number of. Mostly muslim countries have no choice. We have that question has to pieces to it. One is: did Congress, give President Trump the authority to make these judgments in the realm of immigration in there security, and the second one was whether he had illicit motives, whether he had animus against Muslims in using these executive orders, I think Islam hate us there's. Some thing: there's something there that there is a tremendous hatred there there's a trimming, change. We have to get to the bottom of it, because if he did there's an argument that the constitution prohibits the action and we can allow people coming into this country who have this Trade of the United States. I guess Edward had of people that are not muslim. I guess, though, the courses

their war between the West and radical Islam or their work well and western Islamic radical, but is very hard to define its very hard to two separate because you don't know who to and that's what Laura Courts had determined that his original intent to keep Muslims Addison I'd states as here to kill it it. It had kind of contaminated this travel ban and they ruled against it over and over that's right, resident trumps latest executive order is a scaled back version of the original, which was struck down by a federal court. There were three regions the Travel Ban Administration issued another travel ban its third in eight months. In this version they dropped the country of Sudan. They added Chad, which has since again been dropped, but they added north and that as well and those are obviously not predominantly muslim countries, almost uniformly struck down by lower courts across the nation. Just side. The president's own rhetoric during the campaign calling for a total ban on Muslims entering the. U S,

many of them on the ground that these statements betraying anti Muslim Animas violated the constant Sean and therefore, whatever president's authority in ordinary circumstances might have been in this adding. They were enough to invalidate the three travel ban, borders, including the latest one, a presidential proclamation issued in September, the Trot administration thought it had gotten pass legal difficulties by revising the terms of its travel ban. But now a federal in Hawaii has issued a new nation wide hall to that travel ban to the lower cords, basically found that the discriminatory intend outweighed presidential authority. That's right to what happened inside the Supreme Court on Tuesday by a five to forebode, with the more conservative justice is in the majority, with chief justice. John Roberts writing for the majority. The court said in essence,

that it was going to rule on the powers of the presidency, not a particular president and looked it that way. It said that it had to uphold what it said was a neutral proclamation that, if all you look, that was what was on the four corners of the document. The court had to uphold that and could not take account of the campaign, statements and statements from later on and how did this actually unfold in a quorum? First chief justice, John Roberts, summarised his majority decision in which he said, to express some discomfort with president from statements. But he said that Congress has given the present in a lot of authority, and he is explained themselves sufficiently in neutral terms about why he wants to do this, and these various statements he made at various times were not enough to undermine that authority. So what Roberts He's arguing is that the president's authority is basically sacrosanct, that, regardless of intent,

power of the presidency when it comes to making decisions about national security is what it is and his path statements and the latest travel ban. Don't undermine that. That's right and it's also plainly truce, a general matter put aside President Interim for a second but a general matter. The courts do tend to defer to the President on National security judgements do tend to defer to the president on immigration. Here we have the two things in combination. So if we didn't have this array of, statements from President Trump. This would be an easy case so using items that even she Justice Roberts, his writing. The majority opinion seems to have them

revelations about the actual travel ban, but his saying it's legal. Given the present authority yeah, he seems to be holding his nose ass. He makes these judgments is along passage in which she sites earlier president's. Who is he put? It quote: espoused the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this nation was founded. For instance, George Washington said that the United States gives to bigotry no sanction. Then he contrasted those statements with others and said quote: it cannot be denied that the federal government and the President's who have carry. Laws into effect have from the nations earliest days performed unevenly in living up to those inspiring words? That was an indirect but unmistakable jab at President Trump, I dont think

The justice in the majority are happy about where they find themselves. I don't think they like what they are hearing. There was a very interesting concurring opinion from Justice Kennedy in which he says. Essentially, we can't stop him from saying this stuff, but we wish you wouldn't the president. Yes, okay, so after the majority reeds its opinion, what happens in a room once Chief Justice Roberts concluded his summary of his majority opinion to dissenters summarize their descent from the bench. I should say that that me or act of dissent from the bench is a very unusual. It happens a handful of times that term and it indicates profound disagreement. The first of the two dissenters, justice, Stephen Breyer, was relatively mild. His basic problem was that he couldn't tell whether exemptions and waivers in the

will ban policy opportunities for people to come in to consular offices and say I understand, is a general categorical ban, but I'm not a threat. Let me make the case that you can let me in and justice by said, if that was a reality, maybe he'd be ok with it, but he had good reason to think that the categorical ban was a categorical banned and that reasonably mild and technical descent was followed by an extremely vigorous, very tough, very visceral, quite emotional caustic dissent from justice, Sonya sort of my or essentially saying you can't be serious. She said the quote in holding that the first amendment gives way to an executive policy that a reasonable or would view is motivated by animus against Muslims. The majority opinion up ends this courts. Precedent, repeats tragic mistakes of the past and denies countless individuals the fundamental right of religious labour.

And I dont want justice somewhere is referring to past mistakes by the Supreme Court. What does she mean? Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States? She means centrally a case called corresponds to which everyone agrees is a blemish on our nations history, my fellow Americans, the sudden criminal attacks perpetrated by the Japanese and the Pacific provide the climax of a decade- much more morality living That's so more than a hundred thousand persons of japanese ancestry, two thirds of up american citizens, one third alien, we know that some among them were potentially dangerous most where oil, but no one knew what would happen among their concentrated population. If japanese forces should try to

our shores. Military authorities therefore determined that all of them citizens an alien life would have to move. That was the nineteen forty four decision, which the Supreme Court endorse than if the our policy to put more than a hundred and ten thousand people of japanese ancestry on the West Coast into concentration camps and on what basis to the Supreme Court back then uphold sending japanese Americans to interment camps it deferred to presidential power in wartime. So much like the court now refers to the President on national security and issues of immigration. That's right and that's exactly the point, just the sort of my or made she said. The two cases were of a kind

And they quote blindly accepting the government's misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity towards disfavour group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security. The court redeployed, the same dangerous logic, underline Claremont Sue and merely replaces one grave wrong decision with he suddenly or is basically saying, there's no real difference between the travel ban case and core motto. Yes, she's saying this is cormorants, you re ducks and if you say that to a lawyer, those are fighting words, and so how did the justices the majority who are being implicated in what somewhere assaying respond to that claim? Well, they certainly do one interesting thing something long overdue. Do they overrule core? They say the descents reference to hormones zoo affords this court the opportunity to make express what is already

this core Motts, who was gravely wrong. The date was decided, has been overruled in a court of history and to be clear, has no place in law under the constitution, but they say their decision is very different from Claremont Sue. They say quote. It is wholly inapt like in that morally repugnant order to officially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. So in rebutting. Suddenly yours argument that this is like hormone sail. The conservative judges are trying to draw a distinction here, saying that decision core Matthew was discriminatory. This one, the travel ban is not right, and I mean you have to give them. Is the implementation of the order that core monsoon endorsed was aims by name at people

japanese ancestry. The proclamation the court was considering may have been informed by illicit motives, but on its face, did not refer to Muslims, except for when the president did refer to Muslims in the original language he used on a campaign trail, and there is the point that divided the majority from the descent. I think the chief justice would add also that core might sue affected a lot of U S. Citizens living in the United States, while the travel ban by venetian refers to people from abroad, what's happening about this decision and how the majority is slicing, as is that, on the one hand, it was like the message here is that the Supreme Court

will wilfully ignore, intend that may be discriminatory, even when it kind of blindingly obvious that that was the end, because the president articulated that intent. On the other hand, it feels like the court is saying, look the president is entitled to any intent that he or she wants, even if its discriminatory so long as the final law or executive action. Dozen reflect that in time. I think there might be going a tiny bit you for if the travel ban were either phrased, is cormorants who was by singling out people,

the face of the order or if, when the order was issued, people separately said the president or his lawyers, who are now really what we're? After really what our intent is, is to single out Muslims? I think those two things would not be very different, but so long as you have to connect the dots and have to dry inferences from separate statements not directly related to the executive order, the majority said it was going to give the president the benefit of the doubt Adam. What's the practice,

The impact of this ruling, the practical impact really is nothing because we already live in a world where the travel ban has gone into effect, the Supreme Court some months ago. Let it go into effect. Well, the case went forward, which was a sign that it was going to come out as it did, so it doesn't change the reality of immigration policy in the U S, but this is a decision that comes at a time of great debate about immigration is politically salient and its legally important. It is a big endorsement of presidential power in a part of the law. Where did User rising every day in this country so I will always be defending the sovereignty, the safety and security of the american people,

when we asked for an increase in wall spending, so we can finish it quicker. It stops the drugs. It stops, people that we don't want to have and it gives us security and safety right? It seems hard to talk about this case and this rule without thinking about the moment or an in the immigration debate. Given the divide within the court gave the endorsement of presidential power on matters of national security that this gives to President Trump in this moment is part of what we ve learned from this case, that the justice system and even the Supreme Court has become more partners. Then we'd like to. We have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure

at a minimum. We have to make sure that we then we're coming into the country we know coming in. We they're coming from one thing we know for sure is that in the lower courts, almost without exception and in cream court, literally without exception. If the thing you know is the party of the President who appointed a judge or justice. You will know how here she voted. So every republican appointee on the Supreme Court on Tuesday voted to uphold the travel ban every democratic. I point the on the Supreme Court on Tuesday vote to strike down. Is that evidence of politics in judging? I think it is the justices don't like to think about them. That way, but that level of correlation is hard to explain in any other way. The rolling shows that all of the attacks from the media and democrat politicians are They turned out to be very wrong and what we

Looking for, as Republicans I can tell you is strong borders, no crime The Democrats democratic looking at is open borders which will bring tremendous. It'll bring em as thirteen. Lots of others that we don't want to have in our country in a brain, tremendous. The White House itself on Tuesday afternoon releases statement saying that this ruling validates what it's been trying to do on the border for the past few weeks. Why would that be? Do you think? I confess I don't follow the legal logic of that, but there is a kind of atmospheric reality there where people are not going to follow the details of this case very closely, but they're going to understand that a majority on the Supreme Court has just endorsed a policy that President Tromp has been fighting for since the very earliest days of his administration.

And they're gonna think it's of a piece with other immigration policies, including the separation of children at the border, because it seems to suggest that the president has a tremendous amount of authority when it comes to deciding who to let into the country and who to keep out right right. The court is just not willing to second guess, even an idiot, seen Craddock President, who has said some quite wild things when the question is Does he have the power to protect the american border? And our answer is he does that's right Adam? Thank you very much. I think you Michael on Tuesday night hours after the Supreme Court upheld the president's travelling

federal judge in California and issued a nationwide injunction legally dropping the separation of parents and children at the border and ordered that all families already separated reunited within thirty days. The order is likely to initiate a new legal battle with the Justice Department, will be right back. This path is supported by

EU trade trading isn't for everyone, but he trade is whether it saving for a rainy day or your retirement e trade. Has you covered? They can help. You check financials off your list and with a team of professionals, giving you support. When you need it, you can be confident that your money is working hard for you get more than just trading with Eu Trade to get started, visit each dot com, such podcast for more information, each trade, Securities, LLC member fin raw as Ipc hears. What else you need to another day? Today's decision by this ring fine uphold the rights of all Americans both sides of these debates to be able to speak freely their beliefs and not have to violate their convictions. In another five to four decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that centres dabbling to persuade women to continue their pregnancy. Do not have to tell clients about state sponsored services like abortion as a California law required.

Court found at the californian law violated the first amendment by choirs the centres which oppose abortion. Dear information at odds with their believes that quite have consistently how big government hostility towards people of vague is unconstitutional and has no place in a diverse society? At a news conference outside the court, a lawyer for the pregnancy centres, Kristen Wagon, called it a victory for religious Americans and the state of California demeaned religious organisations with prologue views by ordering them to speak messages to use the walls of their pro like pregnancy, clinics to promote and to turn women towards abortion and the first person to be criminally prospect.

Did by the Trump administration for leaking classified information pleaded guilty on Tuesday, a twenty six year old, former intelligent specialist named reality when it agreed to serve five years in prison for giving a reporter a classified report about russian Interference in the twenty sixteen election. As part of its aggressive crackdown on weeks. The Trump administration has now brought charges against for individuals, including a staff member of the Senate, and told Can you That's it for the day I Michael bother suitable.

Do you avoid tough problems and shy away from a debate? Do you think uncertainty limits potential? Neither do we have a university of Chicago Booth, school of business. We believe in asking questions and questioning answers with campuses in Chicago London and Hong Kong. The booth MBA is for people who see challenges as opportunities and want the skills to make positive change in any market anyway, the world ready to find your community search Chicago booth, DOT. Eighty, you today to learn more