Evenwel v. Abbott and Trump v. Hawaii are remarkable Supreme Court cases in which America’s highest judicial institution affirmed states’ ability to use cumulative population when redistricting and upheld Trump’s restrictive immigration policy. The 14th Amendment is a fundamental component of the United States’ Constitution, which addresses multiple aspects of citizenship, equal protection, and the rights of the American nationals (Denniston, 2016). However, despite the provisions of the amendment, President Trump issued a travel restriction prohibiting the entry of citizens from eight predominantly Muslim countries (Howe, 2016). Although the Supreme Court upheld the two rulings from the lower courts, the inclusion of people ineligible to vote and the discriminatory nature of the travel ban should warrant the overturning of the apex courts’ decisions.
In Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court decided that states can permissibly use the total population when drawing their election districts, regardless of their eligibility to vote should be vacated. However, this dimension invariably diminishes the weight of a vote and exposes voting power to unpredictability and fluctuation. This judgment implies that the political power of districts with large populations of people who are ineligible to vote outweighs that of a region with more registered but fewer unqualified voters (Liptak, 2016). For instance, the voting power of the places overpopulated by children, noncitizens, and illegal migrants now transcends that of the areas with fewer eligible to voters. Therefore, this decision should be overturned since it creates uncertainty and variability over the weight of a vote.
Further, the travel ban issued by President Trump and upheld by the Supreme Court should be overturned. Although the president signed the restriction to enhance national security and counterterrorism, it infringes the Immigration and Naturalization Act’s non-discrimination provision (Howe, 2018). Additionally, it violates the stipulations of the Fourteenth Amendment and entrenches the assumption that different clusters of immigrants are entitled to diverse levels of constitutional protection. Therefore, this judgment should be set aside due to its discriminatory nature and the violation of the Establishment Clause.
Conclusively, Supreme Court decisions on Evenwel v. Abbott and Trump v. Hawaii should be overturned. The Court’s judgment on the former creates uncertainties on the weight of a vote and exposes such votes to extraneous factors, such as immigrants’ population. Regarding the latter, upholding President Trump’s travel restriction on citizens of the eight Muslim countries is inspired by anti-Muslim sentiments, effectively inhibits Islam, and promotes other denominations.
References
Denniston, L. (2016). Opinion analysis: Leaving a constitutional ideal still undefined. Scotusblog. Web.
Howe, A. (2018). Opinion analysis: Divided court upholds Trump travel ban (updated). Scotusblog. Web.
Liptak, A. (2016). Supreme Court rejects challenge on “one person one vote”. The New York Times. Web.