The federal courts affect the government ability to enforce national security by some of the decisions and judgment that make it hard to implement some national security policies, especially the ones regarding terrorism. This was evident when the federal courts barred the U.S. government from enforcing Trump’s immigration asylum ban. President Trump had issued an assertion last year November that the immigrants who cross the southern border would be ineligible for asylum. However, Trump’s statement was barred by the Supreme Court judge who depicted that Trump’s administration should not deny asylum to immigrants who cross the Southern border illegally (Caldwell, Perez, & Kendall, 2018). Consequently, the ban barring travelers from countries such as Libya, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea was, therefore, lifted temporarily. The Judge argued that the executive order from the president is discriminatory based on nationality and is opposed to Federal Law and the fundamental principles of the U.S.
The restriction formulated by the Trump administration was to ensure that the foreign nations adhere to the security standards required for the integrity of the migration system and security of the nation. Subsequently, the federal courts have also passed a decision that affected the government’s ability to enforce national security on terrorism. For instance, in another court case where the Supreme Court rejected the efforts made by victims of the three suicide bombings that had happened in Jerusalem in 1997, and the victims wanted to seize the Iranian artifacts that were reserved at University of Chicago ( Liptak 2018). The victims had won the case against Iran and had sought to take the artifacts to help in satisfying the judgment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, the judge depicted that the artifacts of the bombings were protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which states that the Federal Law prohibits getting hold of assets of foreign states, although this did not apply to the artifacts. In this case, the Trump administration had argued that the exceptions in the immunities law never existed and that the artifacts were lent to a U.S. institution for academic studies during the 1930s. These scenarios portray how the federal courts hinder the government’s capability to enforce national security, particularly by enabling aspects that promote terrorism.
References
Caldwell, A.A., Perez, S., & Kendall, B. (2018). Federal Court Bars U.S. From Enforcing Trump’s Asylum Ban. WSJ. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-court-bars-u-s-from-enforcing-trumps-asylum-ban-1542702476
Liptak A. (2018, February 22 ). Supreme Court Rules on Terrorism, Whistle-Blowers and Prisoners. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/supreme-court-terrorism-whistle-blowers- prisoners.html
