[Cross-posted from ImmigProfBlog]
By Kevin R. Johnson
Earlier this week, the Milton L. Schwartz/David F. Levi Inn of Court held its first meeting of the academic year at UC Davis School of Law. Because the meeting was on the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, Judge Emily Vasquez asked me to offer some remarks on the impact of September 11 on the law. Here are my remarks:
September 11, 2001. The words alone bring forth many images and emotions. The morning saw one of those rare events where people look back and think about where they were when they heard the news. It is hard to ever forget the television footage of the jet crashing into the World Trade Center. Closer to home, I will never forget the Sikh owners of the local 7/11 store who plastered American flags on the store windows, basically trying to convince people that they were not Muslim. This simple act spoke volumes about the tension in the air.
For a long while, some said that “9/11 changed everything.” That, I think, is an exaggeration. However, the events did have significant reverberations. Airplane travel became very different — forever. Armed National Guard members immediately were at California airports. Waiting in long lines for screening at airports became common. "Interacting" with TSA officers became a normal part of the airport experience.
The days that followed saw a blur of government responses. I think it fair to say that some people today have regrets about various missteps in the name of security. Some examples might include
1. The treatment of Arabs and Muslims – many now think that “special registration” of Arab and Muslim men was unnecessary. Similarly, the mass dragnet and detention of young Arab and Muslim men is not generally looked on as one of the nation’s best moments.
2. The use of Guantánamo and torture have been roundly condemned.
3. The USA PATRIOT Act and its intrusion on privacy and individual rights has drawn criticism.
On the positive side of the ledger, the nation saw the inspirational rebuilding of the World Trade Center area, with a memorial and museum. The response reflects the resilience of the people of the United States. Who doesn’t like a good comeback story? In the film world, aren’t we on something like Rocky 13?
All that said, September 11 and security concerns remain with us and influence law and policy. But the courts – and this is the upbeat portion of my remarks – have stepped up. Consider the travel bans put into place by President Trump, which applied to noncitizens from a group of countries with predominantly Muslim populations. There actually were three bans, with the first one put into place in January 2018. The bans were rooted in the same fears that influenced the responses to September 11. Some claimed that they were anti-Muslim.
In the first version, it was not clear whether the ban applied to lawful permanent residents or only to temporary visitors to the United States. Nothing less than chaos resulted at airports from coast to coast. I am proud that UC Davis School of Law had students, alumni, and faculty head to airports to help noncitizens seeking admission into the United States. We even had a law professor who happened to be in New York City and went out to John F. Kennedy International Airport to help people in need. I can’t help but think that some of the willingness of people to help persons affected by the travel ban comes from remembering the injustice of some of the U.S. government’s responses to September 11.
The courts played a critically important role in narrowing the three bans, invalidating the first two. We might debate whether the final one was lawful. However, few would say that the final ban’s lawfulness is not a much closer question than the first one. Through judicial review, the courts in effect narrowed the ban.
In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban after engaging in judicial review of its lawfulness. Even though the Court only engaged in rational basis review, that itself is more than once was the case. In the not-too-distant past, the courts have not even engaged in any review of immigration and national security decisions of the president and Congress. In addition, the Court finally overruled Korematsu v. United States, the case upholding the internment of persons of Japanese ancestry, citizens and noncitizens alike – a national blemish if there ever was one.
This leads me to a more general lesson as we work through challenging times. Time and again in recent years, the nation has seen courts enforcing the rule of law in these and other areas:
- The rights of “enemy combatants”
- Sanctuary litigation
- Immigrant detention
- Enforcement of the Flores settlement and protecting the rights of migrant children
- Asylum policies
- The litigation over the decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. This issue is currently before the Supreme Court.
The courts enforcing the rule of law include a conservative Supreme Court. Consider Sessions v. Dimaya (2018) in which a 5-4 Court held that a removal provision of the immigration laws was unconstitutional, an extraordinarily rare occurrence. In another case that surprised many Supreme Court watchers, a 5-4 Court in 2019 found that the Trump administration had not adequately explained its addition of a U.S. citizenship question on Census 2020. In my view, Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote for the majority, joined the more liberal justices to save the Court’s legitimacy as an institution separate from the political process.
Ultimately, my firm sense is that we have learned much from September 11. And I remain inspired by the role of the courts in enforcing the rule of law on national security matters. We all should be proud of that.
