The third time is apparently the charm for the Trump administration now that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the third version of the president's travel ban to go into effect. The countries affected by the ban are Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.
In a one-page order which was backed by seven of the nine jurists, the high court ruled that the administration can fully enforce the current travel ban while lower court cases seeking to overturn the ban are working their way through the legal system.
The court ruling gives U.S. officials the green light to impose the ban on travelers from the above-listed countries with no close ties to America as well as those who do and puts on hold any injunctions from lower courts that sought to block the travel ban.
Challenges to the latest iteration of the travel ban from civil rights and immigration activist groups are pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and the 9th Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for this week on an expedited schedule. Whichever side loses in either venue is likely to take the case to the Supreme Court, which could address the travel ban on the merits before it goes out of session next June.
"The court's action signals that the president's latest travel ban could face favorable prospects once the case arrives at the high court on the underlying issues relating to its legality....The third version of the ban, unlike the previous two, came after a government study of vetting procedures used around the world for travelers seeking visas for U.S. travel," the Wall Street Journal noted about today's ruling, which was the result of an emergency appeal filed by the U.S. Justice Department.In the proceedings, Trump administration officials insisted the U.S. Constitution vests the president with the executive authority to control immigration. The second version of the travel ban expired on September 24, prompting the administration to promulgate a revised version. After a somewhat chaotic and controversial rollout in January soon after Donald Trump took the oath of office, several federal courts blocked the initial version of the travel ban, which many of its opponents argued constituted a Muslim ban.
In general, the Supreme Court is traditionally deferential to a president when it comes to matters relating to foreign policy and national security.
Court watchers today separately predicted that based on the reactions of the justices during oral arguments, the nation's highest court will likely approve sports betting in New Jersey when it announces its decision on that case.As the Supreme Court's travel ban ruling is a breaking story, watch this space for updates.