Above: Zainab Ahmed of Dearborn, Michigan chants during a protest of Muslim Ban 3.0 on the campus of Wayne State University on October 4, 2017 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo by Stephen Perez/Getty Images)

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Hawaii, a case that could decide the fate of the Trump administration’s travel ban — the September 2017 executive order barring individuals from Chad, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and some government officials from Venezuela and North Korea from entering the United States on national security grounds.

There are other important issues at stake in this case, beyond the immediate question of the ban itself. Among those issues is that that case could serve as a test of how much the federal courts will defer to the executive branch whenever it “invokes the magic words ‘national security,’” to justify new policies.

Josh Geltzer was one of 52 former national security officials who submitted an amicus brief arguing that the Trump administration has failed to put forth a valid argument about how the ban benefits U.S. national security.

Take a listen below as Geltzer and I explore:

  • Why national security officials signed a brief arguing judicial deference to executive branch national security decisions isn’t merited here.
  • How the Trump administration’s travel ban came about compared to the normal process for generating executive orders.
  • Whether conservatives should find concerning the idea of Congress delegating as much authority to the executive as the government claims here.
  • The implications of this case for our country going forward.

Music: Autumn Leaves by Podington Bear