Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) responded with disappointment to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Trump’s travel ban, saying on Wednesday that “just because” the measure “is constitutional” does not mean it is a good idea. 

Flake cited a piece he wrote on Medium in April of 2017, arguing against the ban. 

“I feel the same today. Just because something is constitutional doesn’t make it wise. The travel ban does not make us safer,” the senator wrote on Wednesday.

{mosads}Flake argued last year that a “blanket ban” such as Trump’s would not ultimately help the U.S. in the global war on terror.  

“This does not, however, make the new travel ban a good idea. I fail to see what national security gains are achieved. In fact, our long-term security goals are compromised,” Flake wrote last year.

“To win this war on terrorism we will need the help of good and decent citizens in every country — including those countries compromised by terrorism. Imposing a blanket ban based on nationality will only make such assistance more difficult to obtain.” 

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to uphold Trump’s travel ban on Tuesday, saying the president has broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the U.S.

“The president lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings — following a worldwide, multi-agency review — that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. 

Trump issued the policy by presidential proclamation, which limited travel into the United States by people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The nation of Chad first appeared on the list, but was later removed.