Opinion: Why the Supreme Court cannot overlook Trump’s hateful statements on Muslims

To the editor: The Supreme Court had better think twice before it overturns the federal appellate decisions on President Trump’s travel ban on six predominantly Muslim countries. (“Trump’s severe lack of credibility doomed his travel ban with the courts,” Opinion, June 12)

In the 1886 case Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, the court unanimously held that a San Francisco ordinance regulating laundries in “wooden buildings” discriminated against the Chinese even though it mentioned no nationalities. Although almost all laundries in wooden buildings were operated by workers of Chinese descent, the city granted only one permit to those laundries but virtually all of the applications from non-Chinese operators.

The court found an “evil eye and unequal hand” behind the ordinance, reflecting virulent anti-Chinese prejudice.

Yick Wo teaches that when testing the constitutionality of a law, the court should not turn a blind eye to evidence of invidious discrimination like Trump’s hateful statements against Muslims.

Stephen Rohde, Los Angeles

The writer is a constitutional lawyer.

..

To the editor: A travel ban of some magnitude is still very likely for exactly the very reasons that Jane Chong and Joseph Pomianowski say the courts have so far rebuffed Trump.

The key is in the writers’ citation of Justice Felix Frankfurter’s comment that the authority of the judicial branch “ultimately rests on sustained public confidence.”

What must be taken into account is that the U.S. appears to be fully reactionary. If amusement parks, national parks or the Super Bowl are attacked, more than a travel ban will go into effect. It’s a horrific vision, but it is possible in these disunited states.

Michael Katzman, Big Bear Lake, Calif.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook