On the news, Navid Dayzad shared his expertise about the travel ban argued at the Supreme Court.  The news story aired on Voice of America, the largest U.S. international news broadcast established in 1942.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments regarding the legality of the President’s third attempt at a travel ban. As one of the most highly-anticipated Court cases this session, the Court’s decision could not only have significant impacts on the authority of the executive branch for years to come, but also could have tragic consequences for many individuals seeking entry into the United States. The administration argued the legality of its third ban, while the state of Hawaii argued that the ban is unconstitutional and a pretense to deny a group of individuals based on their religion. Navid further shared his legal analysis and interpretation of the arguments, which you can read in part below:

  • About the travel ban, in general: “What you have here is a president making a very broad, blanket stance about a whole category of people without a specific assessment of that individual applicant.”
  • About the administration’s rationale for the countries involved in the ban: “The government has based its choosing of these countries on whether that country has a good system of sharing information with the United States in vetting these people. Purportedly, that’s logical and it makes sense. On the other hand, it leaves a lot of leeway for the president to pick and choose which countries it wants to include in the ban and not to include in the ban.”
  • Interpreting the Justices line of questioning at oral arguments: “There’s no question that the conservative-leaning justices did not want to clip the wings of the president and his powers… This case will have far-reaching ramifications…”
  • Reflections on the travel ban’s moral implications: “This case is very significant because I think it is a true test of our moral compass. Sadly, the travel ban is reminiscent of the ships of refugees who were turned away at Elis Island during World War II, leading instead to their deaths in the concentration camps. And when we reflect on these moments in our history, most of us recognize the immorality, but here we are in the midst of a very similar dilemma. I think this is really the test where we get to show as America that we are not going to let our moral compass falter.”

The Supreme Court will decide whether to keep or strike the Travel Ban by the end of June.  For a preview of how the Justices, may decide, listen to Navid’s news interview.  Visit www.dayzadlaw.com, scroll to the middle of the page, and click play as shown in the picture below.Screenshot for blog