Keeping authority in check

For Pakistanis who aspire to immigrate to the US, the latest ruling from a US federal court is welcome news. A policy that had suspended the processing of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, including Pakistan, has been struck down by US District Judge Jeannette Vargas, who found that the Trump administration had exceeded the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The court held that nationality could not be used as a blanket basis to prohibit the issuance of immigrant visas when Congress had assigned consular officers the authority to assess individual applications.

This matters considerably in Pakistan, where the US remains a major destination for those seeking better economic opportunities. The visa suspension had placed thousands of applicants in an uncertain position through no fault of their own. The court's decision restores an important principle, and there is a lesson here that goes beyond immigration. The executive branch of the world's most powerful democracy does not possess unbridled power. A president may win an election and claim a mandate, but his decisions are not beyond scrutiny. The judiciary can intervene when executive action exceeds statutory or constitutional limits. In this case, a federal judge did precisely that. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court also rejected Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. Taken together, these developments demonstrate the value of a genuine separation of powers. The system is not dependent on the restraint of one individual. Its institutions are designed to place limits on one another.

This is ultimately a reminder of what makes a pluralistic democracy resilient. Pluralism requires institutions capable of protecting vulnerable communities from the arbitrary exercise of power. This requires an elected government to remain subject to the law, even when it enjoys considerable political support - a principle Pakistan has much to learn from.