Supreme Court allows limited travel ban implementation and agrees to hear the government’s appeal of lower court

WASHINGTON, U.S. - Delivering what is being seen as a victory for U.S. President Donald Trump, who has been fighting to implement one of his first executive orders since taking office - the controversial travel ban - the Supreme Court on Monday granted the administration’s request to reinstate part of the ban. 

The much-detested travel ban has suffered several legal defeats since it was signed and the defeats eventually sunk Trump’s approval ratings dramatically in the months that followed. 

Trump’s revised version targeted only six instead of seven Muslim-majority countries and blocked the issuance of new visas, rather than revoking current ones.

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to reinstate part of the travel ban meant to temporarily block people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. 

The court also agreed to hear the government’s appeal of a lower court that had prevented the ban from being implemented.

The decisions came as a victory for Trump, who had been facing an uphill battle after suffering legal defeats in implementing the order for travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. 

The order, that will go into effect within 72 hours, will now mean that people who do not have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States would be barred from entry.

Further, people who can show they have a relationship with a person or entity will be allowed to enter the country.

Reports stated on Monday that the court will hear the case when it returns for the fall term, on the first Monday in October. 

The court said denying entry to a person who does not have a relationship to a person or entity in the U.S. "does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship for the foreign national himself."

The court further added that the interest in preserving national security is "an urgent objective of the highest order." 

Adding, “To prevent the government from pursuing that objective by enforcing [the ban] against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else.”

According to the order, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, along with the newest justice, Neil Gorsuch — who was appointed by Trump as the nominee to the court earlier this year — wanted to lift the hold on the entire ban.

As per the rules, five votes are needed to reinstate the ban in part, and at least four votes are needed to hear the government's appeal.

The Supreme Court typically steps in only if the lower courts are divided on an issue and in this unique case, both the 4th and 9th Circuit courts agreed to uphold district court rulings blocking the ban though they found different reasons to do so. 

The 4th Circuit ruled that Trump’s order discriminated against Muslims and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit based its decision on immigration law and said Trump’s order failed to provide the required justification under the Immigration and Nationality Act for suspending the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality.

DOJ lawyers repeatedly argued that the law gives the president broad powers to control the entry of foreigners, the judges claimed the president’s authority is subject to certain statutory and constitutional restraints.

Hawaii’s district court ruling that was upheld went farther than the Maryland order affirmed by the 4th Circuit, stopping Trump from also suspending the entry of all refugees for 120 days and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year.

However, now, based on the court's order, those provisions can now take effect, with an exception for refugees who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

The court declared, "But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

According to the government - the 4th Circuit ruling created uncertainty about the president’s authority to combat risks of terrorism. 

It adds that the 9th Circuit’s decision “threatens to hamstring the Executive in safeguarding the nation’s border.”

Responding to the Supreme Court decision, Trump on Monday hailed the order calling it a “clear victory for our national security.”

Trump said in a statement that his “number one responsibility” is “to keep the American people safe,” adding that the court’s ruling allows him to do just that. 

He said, “Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.”

Monday’s order was issued in an unsigned opinion on behalf of the entire court. 

The travel ban has emerged as a major point of contention between Trump and civil rights groups ever since Trump assumed Presidency, as various groups have put forward the argument that it was motivated by unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims.