Express Tribune Editorials 24thAugust 2026

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.

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.

Justice delivered

Five years have passed since Noor Mukadam was tortured and beheaded in an Islamabad house, and her killer has finally run out of courts to appeal to. Zahir Jaffer's review petition against his death sentence has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, which found no evidence for his claim of mental illness and refused even to convene a medical board to test it. A review, the bench noted, reargues nothing already settled.

Getting here took a trial court verdict, a High Court appeal, an original Supreme Court judgment and now this review, with each stage adding months or years while the sentence held. Convictions of this kind, upheld this firmly, are exactly the message the law is supposed to send, that violence against a woman will be met with the full weight of the sentence prescribed for it, regardless of who the accused is. What this case has proven is that severe punishment, consistently applied, is a real deterrent. The task now is to make it the rule rather than the exception because the cases have not stopped coming. Barely a week ago, a woman in Rawalpindi's Askari Apartments was found hanging with her hands bound and a wire noose around her neck, with police booking her husband for murder. In May, senators called for tougher enforcement after Rubina Chandio was killed in an honour-related attack in Sindh. June brought further cases, including an acid attack on Dr Mahnoor in Quetta, an attempted abduction of a teenage girl in Gujranwala and the gang rape of a teenager in Ghotki, allegedly filmed to blackmail her family into silence.

The lesson from Noor's case must therefore extend beyond one conviction. Courts must impose the harshest lawful punishment where guilt and brutality are firmly established. Women will remain vulnerable until punishment is not only severe but certain.