Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more.
Hosted by Larry Mantle
Airs Weekdays 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

Will they, won’t they? The constitutional considerations of reinstating Trump’s travel ban




Demonstrators protest against US President Donald Trump and his administration's ban of travelers from 7 countries by Executive Order, during a rally outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2017.
Demonstrators protest against US President Donald Trump and his administration's ban of travelers from 7 countries by Executive Order, during a rally outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2017.
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Listen to story

16:50
Download this story 8MB

President Donald Trump’s Administration filed a petition Thursday night for the Supreme Court to reinstate his travel ban, a move blocked by lower courts in Maryland and Hawaii earlier this year.

The ban would have prohibited travel to the U.S. from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days. Trump’s Administration argued the ban would keep out the threat of terrorism, but federal judges deemed the ban discriminatory. Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to lift the injunctions keeping officials from enforcing the ban, halting the issuance of visas from citizens of Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia.

So how far should Trump’s reach be? Is it constitutional to reinstate the ban?

Guests:

Emily Bazelon, staff writer for New York Times Magazine and the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School; she has been following the story

Michael J. Gerhardt, professor of constitutional law at the University of North Carolina; he is the author of many law-related books, including “The Power of Precedent” (Oxford University Press, 2011); Professor Gerhardt is the only legal scholar to participate in Supreme Court confirmation hearings for six of the nine justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court