A public policy analyst says the White House needs to focus on "totalitarianism" when it argues President Trump's travel ban before the Supreme Court this fall.
The 9-0 decision announced by the Supreme Court on Monday to temporarily reinstate most of Donald Trump's travel ban has been viewed by his supporters as a huge victory for the president. The court ruled that the president's executive order banning visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen could be enforced as long as those individuals lack a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."
Abraham Hamilton III, general counsel and public policy analyst for the American Family Association, says it's an encouraging sign that the high court lifted the temporary stay of the president's order.
"By doing that, they are recognizing that the president has the authority to enact and implement immigration policy. That is an important takeaway," he notes. "[And it's] an important move that all the other courts, prior to the Supreme Court, refused to acknowledge."
Hamilton advises the Trump administration to argue the case based on a particular section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
"I think it would be a shrewd move [on the part of] the president's lawyers to argue this on the basis of excluding those who maintain a totalitarian ideology, without reference to any particular religion," he offers.
"By doing that, you remove the entire discussion turning on First Amendment/Establishment Clause grounds and you focus on the president's lawful authority to exclude people who are hostile actors to this nation because of their desire to supplant and override our Constitution."
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case in early October.
Editor's Note: The American Family Association is the parent organization of the American Family News Network, which operates OneNewsNow.com and UrbanFamilyTalk.com.
This post first appeared here on OneNewsNow.com and was reprinted with permission.