The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday upholding President Trump’s travel ban referenced a moment in American history with a Rhode Island connection.
The opinion quotes a letter delivered by President George Washington to the Jewish residents of Newport. In the summer of 1790, America’s first president greeted members of the Jewish congregation which worshiped at Touro Synagogue, the oldest in America.
After his visit, Washington addressed the congregants in a letter that emphasized America’s policy of religious freedom. He said the government of the United States gives “to bigotry no sanction.”
That very phrase, and a mention of it’s use to communicate with Newport’s Jewish residents, appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The opinion backed Trump’s travel ban.
The inclusion of the phrase came as a surprise to Touro congregation’s president Louise Teitz, who is also a law professor at Roger Williams University.
“Those words were designed to ensure religious freedom, to make the Hebrew congregation of Newport feel comfortable and reassured about their ability to worship freely,” Teitz said. “And that is usually the context in which we think of [Washington’s letter]. And not in any way connected with actions designed to reflect intolerance of another religion.”
The travel ban restricts residents from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. But the Supreme Court’s decision said the language of the executive order remains “neutral on its face” towards religion. The court found the order fell well within the bounds of power granted to a president to shape the nation’s immigration policy.
Justice Roberts referenced Washington’s letter to show the ways in which some Presidents have spoken about religious freedom and tolerance. Prior to his executive order, President Trump famously called for banning Muslims from entering the U.S.
Peter Margulies, a fellow law professor at Roger Williams University Law School said he believes the inclusion of the letter acknowledges concerns about President Trump’s rhetoric.
“But the question is really what’s the role of the court?” Marguiles said. “It’s not in itself a justification for the courts to get involved in second guessing the President.”
In their arguments, plaintiffs in the case argued that based on those statements the executive order was discriminatory, and therefore unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court disagreed saying “the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements.”
