Another anti-immigrant crusade of the Trump Administration reaches the bench of the Supreme Court. This time, the magistrates will have to decide if the immigration ban imposed by Trump after inaugurating as president is constitutional or not.

After his initiative - which forbade the entry of citizens from Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Libya - was blocked by lower courts, and the Administration designed two more models of unsuccessful prohibition in the courts, Trump has taken his whim to the last instances.

"The case has attracted great attention", explains the EFE agency. "So fifteen of the country's fifty states, led by Texas, have positioned themselves in Trump's favor, while another sixteen headed by New York have backed the fight initiated by Hawaii against the immigration ban."

This Wednesday, the Trump administration has formally requested the Court to "reverse the sentences of the minor courts," and the magistrates must determine whether the veto "violates the immigration law or the Constitution," US News reported.

"The court will consider whether the president can indefinitely keep people out of the country based on nationality," the paper continues. "It will also look at whether the policy is aimed at excluding Muslims from the United States."

However, for David Cole, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "because the Administration has argued that the court must blindly defer to the president, the dispute equally concerns the very role of the court in the separation of powers."

In his column for The New York Review of Books, Cole explains:

"The Supreme Court has sometimes deferred to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security policy, but never because of religious bias. And the constitutional case against the travel ban is overwhelmingly strong. Just as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion," it also forbids the government from singling out for disfavor or condemnation of any particular religion. This prohibition is absolute; never in the court’s history has it found an example of justifiable religious condemnation. Yet the travel ban is, in Trump's own words, a ban on Muslims."

Being a definitive moment for so many Muslim citizens, dozens of protesters have gathered on Wednesday before the Supreme Court with banners and megaphones "to request the ban against Muslim refugees to be suspended," EFE explained.

One of the protesters, Liz Hayes, told the agency that "I’m here because the ban is unconstitutional, it’s anti-American, it doesn’t represent the best of our country, we are a nation of immigrants that believes in religious freedom. And to say that a group that belongs to a religion can’t enter is against everything we are".

Likewise, Maryan Abdul-Karem, a Muslim citizen, declared that "all bans, in all their versions, are unconstitutional. We are a nation that welcomes refugees, that is our identity. I am Muslim, I am American and, above all, I am a human being. "

Religious groups of all kinds - Catholics, Muslims and Jews - joined the Court, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), which was dedicated to giving legal assistance to those affected by the ban.

Just a week after the last US military intervention in Syria, the decision of the Supreme Court is more than ever essential, because it will represent the true humanitarian positions of the country, especially in the face of crises affecting millions of displaced people world.

Today and every day we stand with Ramla Sahid & @panasandiego. #NoMuslimBanEver pic.twitter.com/JnSDSEXpAW

— National Immigration Law Center (@NILC_org) 25 de abril de 2018