This comment has been revised as of February 1

The causes of equal justice, racial equality and the basic human rights of immigrants regardless of race or color were not the only losers when the Supreme Court's Republican majority voted on January 27 to allow Donald Trump's and Stephen Miller's white supremacist assault on America's legal immigration system to take effect. The Republican majority's 5-4 decision to put the goal of enabling Donald Trump and Stephen Miller to rewrite more than a half century of US immigration law authoritarian style, with no input from the elected representatives in Congress, has also damaged the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.

Tara Lee Grove, writing in the Harvard Law Review on June 1, 2019, acknowledges that there are many different types of judicial interpretive methods (such as originalism, to give one example). But in order for any method of interpretation to be legitimate, she writes, it must be applied:

"...consistently, with candor, and in good faith". (Bold and italics added.)

See: The Supreme Court's Legitimacy Dilemma

132 Harvard Law Rev. 2240

It was difficult, if not impossible, to find any indications of good faith in the Supreme Court Republicanmajority's decision to uphold Trump's Muslim Ban order in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). In that decision, the Court majority used the fig leaf of "national security" as a pretext despite the overwhelming evidence in Trump's own statements that the purpose if the Ban was to discriminate on the basis of religion in defiance of the Constitution.

As I will show in Part 2 of this series, Trump has now extended this ban into an overtly racial one,not just a religious one, by targeting three countries in Africa and one in Asia with majority non-Muslim populations

In the same way, it is virtually impossible to find any good faith in the Supreme Court majority's decision to permit Trump's Public Charge rule, which is clearly intended to cut off most legal immigration from non-white parts of the world, to take effect.

The Trump administration's Orwellian claim that the new rule is intended to promote immigrant "self-sufficiency" is nothing more than a viciously cruel falsehood. By depriving millions of legal immigrants of Medicaid and other government benefits which are used routinely by a large percentage of Americans, the new rule will in fact make it more difficult for immigrants, most of them nonwhite to become self-sufficient.

The new rule represents anti-immigrant racism at its worst and most virulent. It looks back to the dark days of the Chinese exclusion laws beginning in 1882, when Public Charge (in a less extensive form than Miller's latest version). It also looks back to the shameful time of the 1930's and early 1940's when Jewish immigrants trying to escape Hitler't concentration camps and gas chambers were barred from the Unites States on Public Charge grounds.

But Miller's new Public Charge rule, which is nothing but a huge minefield full of excuses fro denying green cars for reasons that even include items such as having law credit rating, is not only dangerous because it looks back to a dark bast of bigotry and white supremacy, most notably as in the 1924 immigration act which barred most non-"Nordic" immigrants from Asia and,Africa as well as from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Miller's new rule, as well as Trump's racist "Travel Ban" (which should more accurately be called a "Visa Ban") extension to be discussed in Part 2 of this series, also represent a hollowing out of America's democracy and a dangerous sign of coming dictatorship, as I will discuss in more detail in Part 2 of this topic.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law
Harvard Law School LL.B
Harvard College A.B.