The Supreme Court has just upheld Trump’s travel ban, giving Trump the final victory on this issue:
#SCOTUS rules for Trump administration, rejects challenge to Sept 2017 #travelban
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 26, 2018
Scotus conservatives rule Trump travel ban proper
— Robert Barnes (@scotusreporter) June 26, 2018
JUST IN: Trump wins Supreme Court case on travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. pic.twitter.com/PUKSc2AQqJ
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) June 26, 2018
#SCOTUS holds ban is within president's authority under immigration laws and challengers are unlikely to prevail on establishment clause claim because the ban is justified by legitimate national-security concerns
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 26, 2018
Well I don’t think this is a surprise to any of us, as the court always seemed to side with the Trump administration on this issue.
Roberts, Kennedy, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas all ruled in the majority.
UPDATE:
Trump just responded to the travel ban victory:
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2018
BREAKING: Trump calls Supreme Court decision upholding travel ban `tremendous victory' and ` moment of profound vindication'
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 26, 2018
* * * * *
Here’s more of what the court had to say via Amy Howe of SCOTUS Blog:
Court says that the language of the INA is “clear,” and “the Proclmation does not exceed any textual limit on the President’s authority.”
Court says Proclamation is “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA.”
Addresses the issue of the president’s statements on excluding Muslims from the US. Says “the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”
Court says that it will look beyond the face of the Proclamation to consider the plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence about the president’s motivations, “but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds
Says the proclamation is based on legitimate purposes, without saying anything about religion. Proclamation is result of a “worldwide-review process” by multiple cabinet agencies. Notes that it doesn’t apply to Iraq, “one of the largest predominately Muslim countries in the region.”
“under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today tat plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.”
Here is the opinion if you’d like to read more: