This is a Cato Special Podcast. I'm Caleb Brown. The Supreme Court has

upheld the President's controversial travel ban on several majority

Muslim countries. The reasoning, its national security,

there is a rational basis for the claims made by the president, and the law gives the White

House a great deal of latitude. Cato's Ilia Shapiro discusses the case.

To hear the majority tell it, this was a case about deference to the executive over an area of

law that the president has a wide degree of latitude.

Yeah, you could almost say that the majority in dissent are evaluating two different cases or rather the majority

considers this to be a sober evaluation of a normal statute and a normal

kind of constitutional challenge and the dissent thinks that it's

evaluating something that's completely out of the norm that we've never had in our

history and essentially a threat to the Republican and the Constitution is in a suicide

pact.

Very hard to reconcile.

The dissent doesn't even deal with the majority opinions detailed examination of the statutory text.

I don't know whether that's because they think it doesn't matter or because everything just comes down to the constitutional aspects and the threats to our culture and values.

But be curious to be a fly on the wall to see if there are any screaming matches among

the justices over this because if you read between the lines,

this is a very heated disagreement, one that's different than even cases about abortion or

gay marriage or gun rights or any of these other culture

war battles.

So what did the majority find?

...