Travel ban
Justices have likely taken vote on whether to hear appeal.
The Supreme WASHINGTON — Court almost certainly has decided what to do about President Donald Trump’s travel ban affecting citizens of six mostly Mus
lim countries. The country is waiting for the court to announce its ruling in
the biggest legal controversy of the first five months of Trump’s presidency. The issue has been tied up in the courts since Trump’s original order in January sparked widespread protests just days after he took office.
The justices met Thursday morning for their last regularly scheduled private conference in June and probably took a vote
about whether to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of lower court rulings blocking the ban and allow it to begin immediately enforcement.
The decision is expected no later than late next week, after which the justices will scatter for speeches, teaching gigs and vacations. Exactly when could depend on whether there are justices who disagree with the outc o me and want to write
dissenting opinions.
It would take five votes to reinstate the ban, but only four to set the case for argument. The case is at the Supreme Court after two federal appellate courts have ruled against the Trump travel policy, which would impose a 90-day pause in travel from citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., said the ban was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims and pointed to Trump’s campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the travel policy does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination. That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
Trump’s first executive order on travel applied to visitors from the six countries as well as Iraq. Announced hastily and apparently with little warning to affected government agencies, it caused chaos and panic at airports during the last weekend in January as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out who the order covered and how it was to be implemented.
A federal judge blocked it eight days later, an order that was upheld by a 9th circuit panel. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy.
In March, Trump issued a narrower order, but it too was blocked.
The justices have a range of options. They could allow the administration to stop travel immediately from the six countries and hear arguments on the administration’s broader appeal in October. That is the path the administration has urged. But the 90-day ban will have run its course by then, and there might be little left for the court to rule on.
The government has said the ban is needed to allow for an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from the six countries. However, that too should be complete before the Supreme Court reconvenes for its new term on Oct. 2.
The administration also could issue a new ban that includes more countries or is permanent, or both. That could supersede the current case but also could give rise to new legal challenges.
The high court also might keep the ban on hold, but set the case for argument in October. That course might be palatable both to justices who object to the ban and those who don’t like the breadth of the lower court rulings against the president.
Another option would be for the justices to keep the ban from being reinstated and, at the same time, decline to review the lower court rulings. That outcome would essentially end the case. That may be unlikely, however, because the court usually likes to have the last word when a lower court strikes down a federal law or presidential action.