# Travel ban:  Oh for two

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 16, 2017, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281 "2017-03-16T02:26:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 236

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2018, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281/236 "2018-06-26T15:41:52Z")

</div>

As I said [here in 2017](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19978089&postcount=9):

> [@Let's talk about the POTUS, "sovereign prerogative" and the constitutional rights of foreigners](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-potus-sovereign-prerogative-and-the-constitutional-rights-of-foreigners/779053/9):
>
> However, individuals within the United States have a First Amendment right to “hear, speak, and debate with” a visa applicant. This from the Supreme Court in _Kleindienst v. Mandel_, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). This makes the visa applicant a “symbolic plaintiff.” Id at 762.
> 
> So courts have the power of judicial review when a visa is denied and someone inside the country asserts that this denial affected their First Amendment rights.
> 
> However, the scope of this review is not the Lemon Test. The First Amendment creates standing for judicial inquiry, but does not extend the “excessive entanglement,” Lemon Test to visa decisions. Instead, the rule is that if the exclusion is “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason,” then the courts will not further examine the exercise of that discretion. Specifically, the courts may not “test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.” See _Mandel_ at 770.

I can only assume Justice Roberts is an SDMB reader:

> [@SCOTUS Majorty opinion by CJ Roberts in Trump v Hawaii](#):
>
> In Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Attorney  
> General denied admission to a Belgian journalist and selfdescribed  
> “revolutionary Marxist,” Ernest Mandel, who  
> had been invited to speak at a conference at Stanford  
> University. 408 U. S., at 756–757. The professors who  
> wished to hear Mandel speak challenged that decision  
> under the First Amendment, and we acknowledged that  
> their constitutional “right to receive information” was  
> implicated. Id., at 764–765. But we limited our review to  
> whether the Executive gave a “facially legitimate and bona  
> fide” reason for its action. Id., at 769. Given the authority  
> of the political branches over admission, we held that  
> “when the Executive exercises this [delegated] power  
> negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona  
> fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise  
> of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justifica-  
> tion” against the asserted constitutional interests of U. S.  
> citizens.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/travel-ban-oh-for-two/782281)._