Skip to site content

SCOTUS Ruling Raises Questions, Concerns about Precedent

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to uphold President Trump’s ban on travelers entering the U.S. from certain majority-Muslim countries demonstrates the paradox between security and freedom.

On the one hand, the court’s decision followed precedent allowing for broad presidential powers when it comes to national security. On the other hand, the decision seemed to ignore President Trump’s religiously-laced arguments for the ban. The president has called, and continues to call, his executive order a “Muslim Ban.”

When this type of religious language is used to characterize a policy, then religious discrimination has been established as a basis for that policy, as Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, noted in her June 26 statement.

Laws and policies that discriminate against religious groups should strike fear into the hearts of all faithful and free individuals. With this precedent now established, the question looms, will future presidents be able to consider Jewish or Christian bans?

When the U.S. begins to enact laws and policies targeting specific religious faiths, then the country has sadly gravitated away from the principles that our founder’s established. To the millions of faithful and peace-loving Muslims around the world, I apologize that my country has singled out and discriminated against your faith. Today’s decision does not represent the core principles of this great Union or her people.

Mitch Randall

Mitch Randall is executive director of EthicsDaily.com.