Trump scores a Supreme Court win
The final day of the current Supreme Court term delivered a substantial victory for the Trump administration, as the Court allowed two portions of the travel ban the administration implemented earlier this year to go into effect:
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to implement part of his temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and said Monday it would review lower-court rulings that found the executive actions likely unlawful.
The Supreme Court’s action is a reversal of fortune for Mr. Trump, who had been on the losing end of several lower-court decisions that blocked his March 6 executive order that sought to impose a 90-day ban on U.S. entry for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The executive order, a revised version of one issued in late January, also sought to temporarily suspend the U.S. program for admitting refugees.
The justices, in an unsigned 13-page opinion, narrowed the scope of the ban for now, ruling the president couldn’t enforce it against travelers “who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with someone or some organization in the U.S. The court imposed a similar narrowing of the ban on refugees.
The justices, ruling on the court’s last day of their current term, said they would give closer consideration to the case in October, when they will hear oral arguments in the matter. By that time, the 90-day pause on travel Mr. Trump has been seeking would already be over, a fact that could moot the justices’ further consideration of the current ban.
It is possible, however, that Mr. Trump’s administration would seek to restrict travel for some foreign nationals beyond the 90 days. U.S. officials are studying vetting procedures world-wide, and it is possible that review process could result in additional countries being added to the list for restricted travel.
You can read the opinion here.
The ruling is a blow to the "resistance," an infection that seemed to spread to the federal bench. Writing about those lower court rulings, National Review's David French said:
The judges in the courts below have been celebrated as heroic resistance figures. Yet now even the Supreme Court’s most liberal justices have rejected the lower courts’ overreach. The Trump administration is free to conduct its global review to determine whether foreign governments provide sufficient information about foreign nationals applying for entry to the U.S., it’s free for now to impose its new refugee caps, it’s free to temporarily pause entry from Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia, and it’s free to pause refugee entry (unless refugees and applicants for entry have a “bona fide” U.S. relationship.) That’s a win for Trump.
The court will hear the full case during its October term, but the majority of the case may well be moot by that time (indeed, that’s one question the court will consider). The administration will have had time to complete its reviews, and in the meantime the travel pause will apply to the vast majority of the citizens of the affected states. Indeed, the administration will have time to issue new immigration guidance based on the results of its review. The resistance’s greatest legal victory has been gutted, and not even Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted its most extreme arguments.
If the resistance has lost Ginsburg, that's saying something.