Aff Travel Ban Uniqueness

2AC
Court will sustain Trump’s travel ban---questioning during oral argument
proves they’re leaning that way.
Adam Liptak 4-26, the Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times,
“Thursday, April 26, 2018,” The Daily, 04-26-2018, podcast accessible here (no
transcription): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/podcasts/the-daily/trump-
travel-ban-supreme-court.html

President Trump is likely

BARBARO: Meaning that the majority will side which why?∂ LIPTAK: I think
to prevail based on the questioning during oral arguments. The Court’s five-member
conservative majority, I think, based on the evidence and the argument, is likely to sustain the
travel ban .∂ BARBARO: Which is to say from what you could tell, there are five justices who
believe the president’s authority to do this should be weighed over anything he
said as a candidate that might be discriminatory?∂ LIPTAK: Yes .

Court will side with Trump on travel ban---Kennedy swings it.

Ariane de Vogue and Saba Hamedy 4-25, “Kennedy, conservatives appear to back
Trump on travel ban,” CNN, 04-25-2018,
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/supreme-court-travel-ban/index.html

Conservative justices and swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to side with the
Trump administration Wednesday as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on President Donald Trump's travel
ban .∂ More than a year after Trump caused chaos in the airports by following through on a campaign promise and restricting travel from several Muslim-
majority countries, the justices considered the legality of a third version of the original travel ban to decide whether the President ultimately exceeded his

Kennedy's vote
authority.∂ Coming out of oral arguments, the justices wrestled with the travel ban, at times breaking down on ideological lines.∂

could be key , and while he did express some reservation about a candidate's expressions of animus against Muslims during the campaign, he
didn't seem to have overall concerns about the President's authority to ban entry,
noting that the travel ban could be reviewed every 180 days. Other justices, including Chief Justice John
Roberts and Samuel Alito, also highlighted the President's power in this area.∂ The Trump administration
argued forcefully in favor of the travel ban, with Solicitor General Noel Francisco emphasizing "this is not a so-called 'Muslim ban.'"∂ "It excludes the vast majority
of the Muslim world," he told the justices, saying the presidential order was based on neutral criteria and written "after a worldwide multi-agency review."∂

Alito also noted that the ban only impacts a handful of Muslim-majority countries, at one
point stating this does "not look like a Muslim ban."∂ As Francisco took the podium, liberal justices pounced on the
scope of the ban, its indefinite nature and whether it exceeded the President's authority.∂ Pressed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor about where the President "gets the
authority to do more" than what Congress already decided, Francisco said it's up to the executive branch to "set up, to maintain and to constantly improve" the
screening system.∂ Liberal Justice Elena Kagan brought up a hypothetical: what if a president gave strong anti-Semitic statements during his campaign and then
issued a proclamation saying no one from Israel could enter the country. She asked if those statements wouldn't be relevant and indicate animus.∂ Kennedy offered
his own hypothetical concern about a candidate who might express hateful statements, and then "takes acts that are consistent with those hateful statements."∂
"Whatever he said in his campaign is irrelevant?" he asked.∂ Later, critically, when Neal Katyal, arguing for Hawaii against the ban, came to the podium,

Kennedy seemed to express more sympathy for Trump's position. He noted that the
travel ban could be examined every 180 days.∂ And Kennedy asked with skepticism
whether the courts should be second guessing the political branches when it comes to
national security .∂ "Your argument is," he said, "that courts have the duty to review whether or not there is such a national contingency --
that's for the courts to do, not the President?" he asked Katyal.