What does the SCOTUS travel ban decision tell us about the limitations of lawyers? Guest: Diala Shamas

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments when the nine Justices reconvene in the fall on whether  President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, entitled Protecting the  Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, (what the President himself has called a travel ban) is constitutional. Yet, they also lifted a stay on certain aspects of Trump's travel ban, overriding several federal appeals court decisions blocking the order.  The ruling means anyone coming to the US from the six banned countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, will be  forced to prove they have "bone-fide ties" to a local organization or citizen in order to gain entry until the final Supreme Court decision is handed down. According to Diala Shamas, a lecturer in law and a supervising attorney at Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic who works with Muslim communities in the United States, the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's travel ban is proof that the judicial branch cannot be the check on the President's agenda that many on the left were hoping it would be. Her op-ed  “Lawyers alone can’t save us from Trump. The Supreme Court just proved it,” appeared in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post. In this episode of TrumpWatch, Jesse talks to Professor Shamas about what the Supreme Court decision will mean in the immediate term, why it signifies the problems with expecting lawyers to be a bulwark against the President's agenda and what citizens can do to e resist the change in national immigration policy if the answer isn't in the courts.