Uh-oh–President Trump is on a winning streak.

The Supreme Court reinstatement most of the Trump administration's temporary ban on travel to the U.S. from six mostly Muslim countries where the breakdown of civic order is such that it is difficult to vet people who enter the U.S.

It is a blow for the lower courts that claimed the ban was illegal.

The Court will oral arguments on the case in October and then render a ruling.

CBS summed up what the Court has done:

·  The Supreme Court will hear the case in October;

·  It mostly overturned the two lower court orders preventing the travel ban from going into effect;

·  The Trump administration will in most cases be able to enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Somalia and Syria;

·  Mr. Trump said last week that the ban would go into effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.

·  One category of foreigners remains protected, those with "a credible claim of a bona fide

relationship with a person or entity" in the U.S., according to the Supreme Court opinion;

·  The action by the court is a victory for President Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his presidency so far.

The lower courts fouind ingenious reasons why not permitting foreign national to enter this country under the ban was unconstitutional. David French at NRO explained how the per curiamknocked down these claims:

SCOTUS made short work of the claim that a person’s desire to bring their mother-in-law to the U.S. (or a university’s desire to admit a few students or have a lecturer travel for a seminar) granted them the ability to stand in for every single citizen of every affected country:

Denying entry to such [an unconnected] national 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 on the foreign national himself.


At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are un- doubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former category . . . The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else.

Hot Air points out an irony–if the lower courts had just let the ban stand, it would be just about to run out. This action means that it starts again.