Top court largely revives Trump travel ban

The US Supreme Court cleared much of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to take effect this week and agreed to hear arguments in the fall, giving the president at least partial vindication for his claims of sweeping power over the nation’s borders.

Trump called the decision a “clear victory for our national security.” The ban on people entering the US from six mostly Muslim countries can apply for now to everyone except people who have a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the justices said on Monday in an unsigned opinion.

That includes people visiting a close family member, students who have been admitted to a university or workers who have accepted an employment offer, the court said. But the court said people can’t avoid the ban by entering into a relationship solely for the purpose of travelling to the US.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have let the entire ban take effect immediately. The case drew Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues into a divisive fight, testing the court’s approach toward a polarising president.

Trump’s March 6 executive order said the 90-day travel ban would give officials time to assess US vetting procedures and would address an “unacceptably high” risk that terrorists could slip into the country.

Lower courts had said Trump overstepped his authority and unconstitutionally targeted Muslims. The Supreme Court order ends a string of courthouse setbacks for the president and his travel ban.

The court’s 13-page opinion said the lower courts went too far by blocking the travel ban even from applying to people with no connection to the US.

“Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national,” the court said.

The court didn’t directly resolve the underlying issues in the case, instead focusing on the scope of the lower court orders and the impact those orders would have. Still, the opinion suggested support for Trump’s claim of broad presidential power to protect national security. BLOOMBERG