Travel ban gets a sympathetic ear from some on high court

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump’s immigration travel ban a better reception Wednesday than it has received in lower courts over the past 15 months, raising the chances that it will uphold restrictions on travelers from five predominantly Muslim countries.

The court’s conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the administration’s contention that it has the authority to limit immigration in the name of national security. They also voiced skepticism about the relevance of Trump’s campaign promises and statements regarding Muslims.

“If you look at what was done, it does not look at all like a Muslim ban,” Justice Samuel Alito said, noting it applies to about 8 percent of the world’s Muslims. “There are other justifications that jump out as to why these particular countries were put on the list.”

The court’s outnumbered liberals expressed doubts about the president’s power to ban travelers indefinitely despite existing congressional law and said even his tweets on the subject can be used to decipher his motives.

“Where does a president get the authority to do more than Congress has already decided is adequate?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Only Justice Anthony Kennedy among the court’s five conservatives sounded conflicted. Chief Justice John Roberts, Alito and Justice Neil Gorsuch saved most of their questions for the challengers.

The four liberal justices peppered the government’s side with questions. Justice Stephen Breyer voiced concern mostly about the ability of travelers from five majority-Muslim countries to get waivers.

A final decision is expected at the end of June.

The legal battle began after Trump issued his first travel ban last January. That 90-day ban on travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and a 120-day ban on refugees worldwide, were struck down by federal district and appeals courts.

Trump’s second version, issued in March, dropped Iraq from the list and exempted visa- and green card-holders. But it fared no better, getting struck down last spring before the Supreme Court in late June ruled that travelers without close ties to the U.S. could be barred while vetting procedures were reviewed.