Options for Supreme Court on Trump travel ban

The Supreme Court is expected to decide within days whether the Trump administration can enforce a ban on visitors to the U.S. from six mostly Muslim countries.

The high-stakes legal fight has been going on since President Donald Trump rolled out a travel ban just a week after his inauguration.

Trump seeks to halt visits from residents of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days so his administration can review the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries.

Opponents argue that the ban targets Muslims in violation of federal law and the Constitution, and that it stems from Trump’s campaign pledge to halt the entry of all Muslims into the U.S.

A look at several ways the Supreme Court could decide what to do:

Immediate ban on travel

With the votes of five justices, the court could agree to the administration’s request to immediately reinstate the travel ban, which Trump has said would go into effect 72 hours after a favorable court ruling. The administration has said the revised travel ban Trump issued in March would avoid the chaos and confusion at airports that followed the initial travel order in January. That’s because the new policy does not apply to people already in the U.S. or with a valid visa at the time the ban takes effect, the administration has said. Opponents still worry people will be caught in legal limbo if the ban is enforced.

Keep the travel ban on hold

The court could side with opponents of the ban and refuse to let it take effect. But the administration could still conduct the 90-day review that Trump had tied to the travel ban and a revised executive order could follow. A new ban might include more countries or be made permanent, or both. A new policy almost certainly would lead to new legal challenges.

Argument in front of the court

Whether the court immediately allows the ban to take effect or keeps it blocked, the justices might schedule argument on the issue for the fall. But there is a fair prospect that the argument — if it even takes place — would be a sideshow. This week’s court action is the main event. That’s because the 90-day ban will have run its course before any argument takes place in the fall and, if the ban remains on hold, a new travel policy might be in place.

Any chance of argument right away?

Opponents of the travel ban had suggested, under certain circumstances, that the court could hear argument and issue a decision almost immediately, before the justices leave town for the summer. That prospect always seemed remote, and is even more so during the final week of June, with the court scheduled to issue the term’s final opinions on Monday. Also, the court has worked at such a fast pace only rarely and usually in the midst of political crises.