Supreme Court Takes Up Travel Ban Case, and Allows Parts to Go Ahead

Jun 26, 2017 · 816 comments
Philly (Expat)
The Western world has a little problem with Islamic terrorism in case some commenters have not noticed. The UK alone has had 3 Islamic terror attacks in as many months. The West seems impotent to stop it. One no brainer would be to control immigration and entry policy better, and that is what Trump's EO attempts to do. The SCOTUS strongly signaled that the 4th and 9th circuit courts got it wrong when they ruled against it. It is predicted by most legal and constitutional law experts that it will be overturned by the SCOTUS. Thankfully cooler heads look like they will prevail. The US Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to immigrate to our country! And the US constitution is not a suicide pact! Thankfully the editorial writers and the 4th and 9th circuit judges are not justices of the SCOTUS!
Linda Francis (Fernley NV)
This whole thing is about Trump's supporters and their fear. Be afraid of everyone that doesn't look like you, isn't the same religion as you. It's red meat for his supporters. Now it is a matter of his ego and his thin skin. King Trump cannot accept the fact that their are checks and balances in our democracy. It make widdle Donald so Mad.

Wanna bet Trump hasn't made any changes on how we vet those coming into this country. Which as it stands takes at least 2 years for refugees. Homegrown terrorist seem to be the major problem here as well as in Europe.
Kareena (Florida)
Umm. I haven't seen Saudi Arabia on the
list. You know, the country where the 911 terrorists came from. The ones who started this whole mess.
Billv (RI)
Bottom line: Supreme Court says President has prima facie power to bar immigrants from any country he/she has no investments in.
carlson74 (Massachyussetts)
The vetting is strong enough.
RB (West Palm Beach)
Trump and his propaganda machine are quick to sing victory. The Supreme Court agree to allow those who have reasons to be here to enter. I don't believe the Supreme Court Will agree on a outright ban on Muslim countries selected by the Trump administration. Trump still cannot discriminate by excluding Muslims as he would like.
Chulon (San Francisco)
Wow! Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent. Ultra-conservative and legally questionable. Under the U.S. Constitution only Congress has the responsibility and authority to enact immigration and nationalization laws (Article I Section 8 Clauses 3 and 4). Unfortunately, the Congress wants to play political games with people's lives and has blocked all attempts at immigration reform; instead they want to go on witch hunts. It's more fun to give the third degree to political enemies, than actually legislate. BTW, non-transparent bills do not count in a democratic society e.g, health care. The result of the nonfeasance has allowed Presidents do "legislate,' "declare war,' and infringe on the powers of the Congress. The current holder of the presidential office is trying to reduce the trinity of the branches of government into a dictatorship in a Schicklgruber façade. "National security" is a catchall phase for people he disagrees with; but he has no problems with his tovarish colleague. Still waiting for the showing that there is an immediate threat to national security.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)

"Since terrorism is unpredictable, a proactive rather than a reactive approach is needed."

"Proactive" certainly sounds better than "reactive." "Security" sounds prett good too.

But what, exactly, do sound-good words like that imply here? That we all should be willing to have someone look through our brief case or purse or backpack before we get on a city bus? How about a body-cavity search? That would make us all more "secure," and it certainly would be "proactive."

To be sure, none of us wants to be the victim of a terror attack. But if reducing the odds of that mean having some stranger look through my brief case or purse or backpack before I get on a city bus, or perhaps perform a body-cavity search, I'll prefer to take my chances.
marriea (Chicago, IL)
Round one for Putin.
Under the leadership of Trump, Putin wants to destroy the U S's image in the world.
According to reports this morning, many countries now look at the U S in an unfavorable light.
We are supposed to be a leader country in the world.
But our integrity is being greatly tarnished.
Way to go America.
Pete NJ (Sussex)
The blocks issued by lower courts for this executive action were purely for political purposes and followed no law. The President has great latitude in saying who can and cannot come into the US and the Supreme court knows it.
Remember folks, it's 90 days while better vetting is figured out. Makes total sense.
George (NYC)
The Supreme Court will weigh in on the right of the executive branch to issue the travel ban not the ban itself. It is highly likely they will set aside the ruling by the 9th district. The rights afforded the executive branch in the construction are what they are. It will be a slam dunk win for Trump!
Romy (NY, NY)
I guess Gorsuch had to pay back his dues for the nomination and approval to the WH and Congress. Under the circumstances, it's nearly impossible not to be cynical. No ethics, no laws, no precedents, no...
Harry Sihan (Leiden, The Netherlands)
The lack of common sense in this matter does not cease to amaze. One just has to ask the questions: how many people have been killed or even threatened by 'outside' terrorists in the US? How many terrorist plots concocted by people coming from said nations have been discovered/prevented? Even in Europe with its open borders, the majority of the attacks are carried out by homegrown terrorists. The effort and energy put into this could have been used for more important and pressing matters. Just to name a few: gun violence, hate crimes, and racism. About the latter, one should wonder why it is that France, the UK, and Belgium produced the most homegrown terrorists in Europe. This travel ban is like giving paracetamol while the patient has a brain tumor.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Several things wrong with this statement:

",,,the Supreme Court's verdict correctly support Trump's perfectly legal decision..."

First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't do verdicts; juries do. Second, and more important, the Supreme Court hasn't decided the case. It simply ruled that it would take the case. Arguably the 9-0 vote to take the case, and/or the Court's cut-the-baby-in-half order pending the Court's decision, hint that the Court intends to reverse, but those "hints" are extremely subtle at best. We're just going to have to wait.

By the time the Court actually decides, a great deal more water will have passed under the bridge on this immigration issue, and so it won't much matter how the Supreme Court rules.

It will matter to us lawyers, though. Maybe by then we'll be the only ones who care, but we'll still care.
Bob K. (Monterey, CA)
The SC decision seems sensible to me. It expresses skepticism in two areas: President Trump's claim to broad discretion to disrupt the lives of foreign nationals who already were granted entry to our country, and several lower courts that appear to believe that they can encroach on the powers of the executive branch based on their reading of the President's mind. It also gives Trump about four months to get its legal arguments in line to convince two justices in the majority that the latest Executive Order should remain intact in its entirety. I think it will be a tough sell. The final decision remaining as it is would be a good outcome.
Dave (Rust Belt)
Why is there still a need for the travel ban? Didn't Trump sign an EO that was to last for 90 days to enable more extreme vetting measures to be set up?
Has his administration been sitting on its hands for the past 5 months in relation to national safety and not setting up stricter vetting of entrants?
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
The authors "boldly" predict how the 9 Justices will vote. I put "boldly" in quotation marks because the authors put the 9 Justices in the usual groupings -- Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer on the left; Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch on the right; and Kennedy and Roberts as the "deciding votes."

I'd probably have made the same groupings. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 9-0 decision here, especially after reading recently that 40% of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously. I'd put the odds of a unanimous decision in this case at well under 40%, but this prediction is a fairly easy one: However unlikely may be a unanimous decision in this case, if the decision is unanimous, the odds of it being in Trump's favor are about 99%. That's NOT the same thing as saying Trump has a 99% chance of winning (I'd put his odds at about 60/40) -- simply to say that IF the decision is unanimous, then it almost certainly will be in Trump's favor.
Papa Pierre (Connecticut)
If the purpose of the ban was to spend 90 days to carefully review vetting procedures, why haven't the past 6 months been used to review procedures?
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
I figured out why the Supreme Court decided to take this case:

Hint: All 9 Justices are lawyers, aka "former law students."

As such, they probably like having a case come down the pike now and then that they remember who won. Every lawyer remembers who won Bush v. Gore, for example, but how many remember who won Erie Railroad v. Tompkins? How about Marbury v. Madison? Both cases are far more important to American jurisprudence than Bush v. Gore, but very few lawyers (I included) don't remember who won -- indeed, most lawyers probably don't even remember what those cases were about.

Nearly everyone will remember who won this case, of course, even if the Court simply declares it moot. In other words, it's Bush v. Gore, rather than Erie Railroad v. Tompkins or Marbury v. Madison.

OK, there may be (as in "are") other more important reasons that the Supreme Court took this case. But in a quiet moment, at least one of the Justices might admit to herself or himself that this is one of the reasons: They just wanted to decide a case where they'd remember who won.
carlson74 (Massachyussetts)
My grand parents had that provision but with communications being so it is not necessary. I don't like the decision.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
To fellow lawyers, I put this more as a question than an observation. Have you been somewhat surprised by the "standing" arguments in these cases -- particularly those made by Americans (university professors, or states, for example) who argue that they've been legally harmed by immigration restrictions imposed on non-Americans?

This seems to be the basis for the distinction drawn by the majority here (albeit rejected by Thomas, though only on the ground that the distinction might be hard to make): Immigration applicants who have a credible claim to some connection with an American are given preference over applicants who don't. The immigration applicants themselves might well be identical in every way except one: some have connections with an American, while others don't. Obviously this shifts the focus from the immigration applicant to an American with whom he has (or doesn't have) some "tie or relationship." That person (the argument goes) does have Constitutional rights, regardless of whether the immigration applicant does, and his/her rights are being abridged if the applicant is denied admission.

Clever way to sidestep the argument that immigration applicants, non-citizens by definition, don't have any Constitutional rights. But a dangerous argument, since it can be used to "transform" pretty much any non-American's non-Constitutional claim into a Constitutional right held by some American or other. If this occurs, the "standing" requirement effectively disappears.
GNTAT (California)
The Supreme Court upheld and reconfirmed President Trump's authority to act in the best interest of Americans when it comes to national security. This is the correct decision.
Roberto Fantechi (Florentine Hills)
We are just now seeing the most significant aspect of the result of the election, the veering to the right of the composition of the SCOTUS. Gorsuch was the first significant one, others will follow. But what about the country, will it be at odds with the supreme judges?
Bos (Boston)
SCOTUS is helping the Trump administration save face: the State Department could deny people from anywhere from entering the U.S. if they have no "relationship" with this country by refusing them visas. So this so-called Trump temporal ban is largely a political gesture
Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma (Jaipur, India)
Instead of giving partial relief to the President on his travel ban order, the Supreme court as the custodian of the constitution should have rather looked into the constitution violating executive overreach attempted by President Trump.
Joe (iowa)
I talked to many of my friends today. None of us are tired of winning. Dems and other libs better get ready for a very long 7.5 years.
Frank Travaline (South Jersey)
Your group shouldn't be tired as this is Trump's first win. The past six months have felt like 7.5 years.
Colin Davies (California)
It's nice to see that in a time where neither Congress nor the White House can get their head on straight, the Supreme Court still knows how to do its job.

This is a solid ruling that upholds the powers of the Presidency but prevents Presidential over reach. I still think that the travel ban is wrong, but I also support the President's right to exercise his power.
GNTAT (California)
Since terrorism is unpredictable, a proactive rather than a reactive approach is needed. President Trump has the authority according to the US Constitution to protect American lives and welfare. Furthermore, foreign nationals who have no "bona fide" connection to the United States are not protected under the Constitution.
I am sorry for the many innocent foreign individuals from these six nations who are banned because of the radicalized individuals and their heinous crimes. Please root these people out from your communities because they do not represent the larger population.
AACNY (New York)
People claiming the 90-day window has already expired and/or that Saudi Arabia wasn't on the list demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the terrorist threat.

First, as ISIS is dislodged from its bases, it will spread to other locations. These locations will likely be ungoverned, lawless regions -- just like the territories for which President Trump believes we need a more serious vetting process.

Second, the Saudis know who is in their country at all times. They can share intelligence and background information on people when and if we request it. In the ungoverned territories there is no such mechanism in place to provide this information. People can easily flow through those territories from other countries, and their country of origin will remain unknown to us.
sherri (Long Island)
Iran is neither ungoverned or lawless, but it is on the list.
Susan (Massachusetts)
The Saudis knowing who's in their country didn't stop them from exporting terror on 9/11.

And despite civil war, 97 percent of Syrian citizens have documentation.
Here (There)
I suspect that ISIS is a long term brushfire that even with no land in its control it will use lone wolfs and others requiring minimal resources to strike. All the more reason to recognize the powers of the presidency.
Leigh (Boston)
Notice how the Supreme Court's ruling protects the money pouring in from international students, notice how it also continues employer sponsored visas - in other words, the corporate needs are addressed. Refugees? What money do they have? We should just put a for sale sign up for the entire country and be done with it.
LarryPDX (Portland)
I thought the ban lasted only 90 days, isn't this mute
Mjc (Atl)
You mean "moot". Whether you think it moot would depend on whether you value upholding the constitution and educating millions of ignorant citizens about the truth of the law of the land regarding the powers granted the President, regardless of political correctness. The founding fathers had wisdom, after all, when they said the buck stops with the Supreme Court.
Russ D. (Spotsylvania, VA)
This is this is exactly what the 9th circuit should have done and it points how slanted to the left the 9th circuit is...
jway (local)
So the only people who can come are people who "love the United States and all of its citizens". Really, ALL of its citizens? Do we really want people who love the likes of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and Timothy McVeigh?
Jay Lincoln (NYC)
The single dumbest (and most frequent) comment I hear from Dems is that we don't need the ban because no one from those 6 terror prone countries has mass murdered anyone here yet, although it's happened in Europe.

It's like saying on 9/10 that we don't have to worry about terrorists using airplanes as missiles because 9/11 didn't happen yet.
Yoandel (Boston, Mass.)
Here goes the Supreme Court, with Salomonic hubris, thinking they can discern what's salvageable and what is flotsam --but trash in, trash out. Worse, the Supreme Court will trash itself and the country because anything and anyone Trump touches rots and rots...
bozicek (new york)
Not only does the Supreme Court's verdict correctly support Trump's perfectly legal decision not to accept unverified MIGRANTS from stateless countries where terrorism is rife, it exposes the preening, politicized and disingenuous Leftist regional judges who ruled against the temporary travel ban in the first place. Thankfully, the Constitution is more revered by the Supreme Court than the compromised judges trying to get accolades at leftist cocktail parties.
Reg (Suffolk, VA)
If the SC affirms the travel ban created solely to discriminate against Muslim nations not doing business with Trump Inc. can we expect this ruling to be a springboard for similiar and even more egregious legislation? Unfortunately yes.
ed (honolulu)
The future of America lies before us and it is Trump. You can natter and complain but you are only denying the inevitability of history.
Sean (HK)
I think the new planet of the apes movie hit cinema at the right time. The series is pertinent to the problems the US and the world are facing.
Southern Boy (The Volunteer State)
The decision by the Supreme Court will give the Trump administration time to develop procedures to extremely vet travelers from the nations affected by the travel ban. These nations were originally identified by Obama as sources of terror. Trump is just following up on his predecessor’s work. I agree that unless these people have a legitimate reason to be in our nation, then they must stay out. And even then, they must undergo extreme vetting to make sure that they do not have ties to terror. America has experienced terrorism on the grandest scale on 9/11, when more people, most of them civilians, died than during the attack on Pearl Harbor. I experienced that day in DC; two of my neighbors died at the Pentagon. It’s not a day I wish to experience again, and I hope no American ever has to experience that. Thank you.
Nicholas Kenda (Los Angeles, CA)
I am sorry for your loss on 9/11. However -- 9/11 was largely orchestrated by some citizens of Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden was Saudi. You wrote that you are supporting DT's ban because you don't want another 9/11. But -- Saudi Arabia is not even on the list of banned countries. Why not? This doesn't make any sense.

That's the problem with DT and his policies. They are not consistent, they are rushed, they are ill-prepared. Many of us would be ok (and even welcome) improved vetting procedures (within reason!). We are not crazy and we understand that the world can be a dangerous place today. However, we cannot accept an outright ban on citizens of entire countries, because doing so goes against our core American beliefs.
In my opinion, this decision is a win for both Trump--and ISIS. Trump simply wants to feed his base, keep their loyalty, and win again. (As I see it, that's the core reason for anything he says/does--himself.) ISIS, on the other hand, wants more divisiveness which will cause more Muslims to feel alienated and unwanted and thus be attracted to their Jihadists goal to take over the world, one suicide bomber at a time.
Ghost (Light 15)
So will you be joining ISIS in protest, or do you think this might not be a good enough reason? And if you cannot be driven to jihadism yourself, why do you insist Muslims are less resistant to becoming suicide bombers?
Chris (Paris, France)
I see what you're trying to do, but your reasoning only confirms that Muslim immigration should be restricted or wholesale avoided.
You're in essence pointing out that Muslims react to alienation by getting guns and making bombs, and retaliating against Infidels to avenge their hurt feelings (civilized people - anyone else, really - take legal/civic action, or just live with it). In other words, Muslims need to be handled with kid gloves, lest they act up in mortal tantrum. Not really selling the refugee/migrant deal...
Kent (Worcester, MA)
I don't understand how both the President and his Press Secretary can describe this as a 9-0 decision when there are plainly 3 dissenting judges. Is there ever any reason to believe them?
Peter Murphy (Chicago)
The three dissenting judges objected to the fact that President Trump's ban was only partially reinstated. They were MORE supportive of Trump's ban than the other six.
Karen (Ohio)
It was a unanimous decision. The three judges were not dissenters but wrote a dissenting brief in that they felt the ruling didn't go far enough in protecting the citizens of the United States!
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)

As Karen's comment (earlier) points out, you effectively put a "Hit me!" sign on. Thomas (and Alito and Gorsuch) voted with the other 6 Justices to hear the case. They just thought the Court should have gone even farther -- by not drawing a distinction between an immigration-applicant who had a credible connection to some American, and one who didn't. Thomas argued that making this distinction is difficult or impossible in many cases, and ruling that the distinction makes a huge difference imposes an unfair burden on immigration officials.

Good point, and one I confess I hadn't thought of. But, frankly, I couldn't care less about procedural distinctions drawn by the SC prior to its decision in this case. If the SC maintains that distinction in its actual ruling, I'd be quite concerned, but I don't expect that will occur.
Conservative Democrat (WV)
The President has the authority and duty to protect our borders. The nations in the ban are countries with failed governments that limit our ability to vet.

Can you run a social security number or a fingerprint with the Syrian government? Can you interview former teachers and neighbors in any of these countries? Of course not.

The United States Supreme Court is not in a position to make foreign policy judgments and usurp the power of the executive branch and this initial decision seems to indicate as much.
Susan (Massachusetts)
Actually, Syria has meticulous records, and approx. 97% of refugees from there are documented. (Source: PBS/Frontline)
Crocus Hill (St. Paul)
I'm confused. I thought the Republicans were against broad executive rule-making authority, and the Democrats were for it. The distinction seemed to apply to immigration law. At least that how it seemed when first DACA, and then DAPA were issued. Has something changed?
ed (honolulu)
Mediocre minds cannot comprehend genius. Lets face it. Trump is Triumphant.
Sam (Canada)
Mark Thomason (Clawson, Mich)
I hope the Supreme Court finds a way to a 9-0 final decision too. However they decide it, all of it, none of it, or some bits of it, we need the sense of their unanimity. We need to get away from the sense that this is partisanship first and last.
James wilson (CA)
When this imbroglio began this ban was supposed to be temporary, just until the vetting process was made more robust. The goal was to protect the homeland and its citizens. Well, it was suspended almost from its inception, and, lo and behold, even with the more anemic vetting there have been no terrorist incidents originating in any of the Middle East countries, much less in those countries blacklisted by the Trump administration. I am led to believe that the Administration's efforts were a mere pretext meant to smear Middle Eastern people, to stereotype them as a reliably potential threat to our safety. The drumbeat of fear was also pushed up a notch by this policy.
ShakdidaGalimal (Chicago)
According to US HS statistics, there have been 342 terror incidents in the six nations on the temporarily restricted list since the first striking down of Trump's initial EO on Jan. 21, 2017.
I think this was the reasoning: the President has a statutory right to set immigration policy in the national interest. As argued by his opponents, that power is constitutionally restricted, both by the first amendments and Article II. These issues will be argued in the fall.

By lifting the stay, Court takes the view that the first constitutional question - whether the bill violates the First Amendment - relates to the rights, NOT of those seeking to enter the country, but rather of the US institutions and individuals who have an interest in having them enter. People with no connection to the United States– foreign nationals – have no constitutional protections. Americans who bring in relatives, workers, or lecturers, may have such protections. Therefore, in lifting the stay order, the Court suggests that that the first amendment restriction, even if held to apply to presidential immigration orders, will not protect anyone who does not have a connection to someone in the U.S. Leaving it in place for those with connections to the US suggests that at least some members of the Court believe that, for these people, Trump's order may violate the first amendment rights of those who invited them.

The second constitutional issue, which is also a statutory one, is whether the president can without a reasonable basis bar any foreign nationals from entering the US. This is an Article II question, regardless of what Congress intended. If it goes against Trump, the whole order falls.
Lisa (Sacramento)
It is clear from these comments that the US population does not understand legal procedures and that the media community both "right and left" is not interested in offering objective legal analysis to the general public for their own biased reasons.

Regardless of your opinion, or hoped for outcome, we all have a vested interest in objective honest commentary by neutral analysts.
Typhoon917 (New York, NY)
I'm stuck here pondering why the Supremes get off from June until October. Are the justices part timers or maybe they're going on a road trip doing old Motown classics on the Catskills circuit?
AACNY (New York)
From Jonathan Turley*:

"The hostile (and often distorted) analysis in the media was disconcerting but predictable, given the trend toward greater opinion-infused coverage. Networks are fighting for greater audience shares based on formulaic coverage — offering echo-chamber analysis to fit the ideological preferences of viewers. For the anti-Trump networks, the legal analysis is tellingly parallel with the political analysis. These cable shows offer clarity to viewers in a world without nuance. The law, however, often draws subtle distinctions and balancing tests. In this way, viewers are being given a false notion of the underlying legal issues in these controversies."


*In fairness to the courts and some commentators, there are good-faith reasons to argue against the travel order. Indeed, I predicted at the outset that there would be conflicting decisions in the courts. However, it was the tenor and basis for the decisions that I found disturbing. Courts that once gave President Obama sweeping discretion in the immigration field seemed categorically opposed to considering the same accommodation for President Trump. For commentators, viewers were given a highly distorted view of the existing law — brushing aside decades of cases while supporting the notion that a major federal policy could live or die by the tweet."

Augustus (Left Coast)
Best comment here!
Confusedreader (USA)
The court issued a number of very important rulings today, I applaud them.
vova (new jersey)
LOL, what ban? What security? People get slaughtered every day in this country cause of the gun mayhem, and they wanna ban muslims to provide "security and protection". LOL, I just can't take it anymore people.
Let me tell you, this country totally lost any sanity. Complete mental derailment. American Titanic is on the way!
jo (co)
This is repugnant. or should I say repubnant. We are killing each other. Muslims are not killing us. I want to see statistics. I want to read what the rationale is from the "liberal block" . How embarrassing that our country that used to stand for human rights has done this.
Non Chi-Comm (Chitown)
If there is any question, the foreigner must be barred entry.
Joan Bee (Seattle)
I have once before attended the July 4th group naturalization ceremony here in Seattle (Seattle Center to be exact). It was a very moving experience, with 59 countries represented, hundreds of family members and friends, and people like me, a child of immigrant grandparents from Poland and Slovakia.
This year, I will go again, to stand in solidarity with the courageous souls who persisted in completing all the requirements to prove their worthiness of becoming a U.S. citizen. I will carry a small American flag and a sign offering my welcome and my love.
Shelley B (Ontario)
Trump's travel ban is wrong on so many levels. Ignoring the plight of refugees is one of them. The hypocrisy of admitting immigrants from Saudi Arabia is another. Meanwhile, last week NPR featured a program discussing Trump's lofty goal of 3% growth in the economy annually. One slight problem with that: who is going to replace the millions of Baby Boomers leaving the workforce, a serious impediment to productivity and the economy? It will take the equivalent of the last 80 YEARS of immigration to keep the economy going and growing! In other words, 40 million immigrants to join the workforce over the next decade. Given Trump's hardline immigration policy, how likely is that to happen? One again, Trump bites off his nose to spite his face.
Chris (San Francisco, CA)
Realize that three Justices - Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch (stolen seat) - came right out and said they would enforce the travel ban in full, no restrictions. That's 3 out of 5 votes right there. Don't fool yourselves. Our civil liberties (not to mention reproductive rights) hang in the balance. Gorsuch is doing Trump's bidding as promised. Conservatives are giddy.

This is also textbook legislating from the bench that conservatives bemoan when it doesn't serve their interests. What does "bona fide relationship" to the US even mean? Get ready for a plethora of factual court disputes over that hair splitting.

Enforce the ban or don't. Give the President full authoritarian powers or don't. Frankly, the status quo in this instance calls for keeping the injunctions in place until the Court heard the full case. But this will be a 5-4 decision guaranteed and could go either way.
WC Argus (Springfield, MO)
"For Mr. Trump, the opinion was a rare legal victory after months in which the lower courts repeatedly chastised him for imposing a de facto ban on Muslims’ entering the country."

Rarity is hardly the point. Activist Circuits can flood their courts with copious like-minded opinions. In the end, there is only one decision that makes a difference. As far as what has been decided here so far, 9-0 speaks volumes.
Peter Murphy (Chicago)
I've been predicting this unanimous reinstatement since day 1. You can challenge the wisdom or necessity of President Trump's travel ban. But in both the Constitution and the statues, there is absolutely no question that the ban is well within the president's authority.

Unfortunately, it will take years to purge the Obama and Clinton-appointed judges who think it's their job to legislate from the bench. But in the meantime, a couple more Trump appointments to the Supreme Court will allow us to keep those activist judges under control for decades to come.

Thank you, President Trump. And God bless you.
NYCarchitect (NYC)
I would definitely make this about republican vs democrats - left vs right. Don't try to understand the real facts of the matter. That's what's best for America.
WillT26 (Durham, NC)
I support our government being able to deny foreigners access to our country.

The Constitution protects citizens. Our nation exists for its citizens- not as the worlds dumping ground.
NYCarchitect (NYC)
Many of the countries where the refugees are coming from are worn torn due to wars started by....George W.

Here's a thought. Try not to think of these refugees as trash- that's clearly what you're insinuating. With certainty, I can tel you they are human beings.
Mark (Florida)
So I'm sure today Trump loves the justices that he's been condemning for months. What a waste product.
JMM (Dallas)
I don't want to hear any drivelling about liberal judicial activism. Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch all dissented on the birth certificate matter today. Add to that the fact that Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch clung together on the travel ban this morning. You cannot convince me that these three rightwing justices do not opine based on their party's ideology.
David (Melbourne)
The court has stated that the President is able to take action to defend the US from people deemed to be dangerous. But it has shown no interest in asking the administration to present even a shred of evidence to prove that the seven banned countries suddenly pose a risk. So the court has essentially ruled that a dangerous person is whoever the President points a finger at. This is a massive blank cheque for bigotry.
Peter Murphy (Chicago)
It's the law. Congress has delegated to the President the responsibility and authority to determine which foreigners are, and which are not, a threat to the security of the United States.
ShakdidaGalimal (Chicago)
Don't worry, those 17 intelligence agencies that convinced Russia hacked up the POTUS win for President Trump under his watchful assistance have also stipulated which nations and why belong on the temporary restricted travel to the USA list, and had to inform President Trump, who didn't want to just close his eyes and point at dark spots on the globe.
Shosh (South)
Trump is rising now. Guaranteed to carry out his promised agenda for at least 4 full years, probably will be re-elected in 2020
Cjmesq0 (Bronx, NY)
This is such an obvious slam-dunk win for the president when the SC takes up the case. The circuits are so over-the-top leftist, with no rational basis or thought, containing any fidelity to the Constitution or separation of powers.
NYCarchitect (NYC)
Many of the justices who joined to strike down the ban were appointed by republicans. But again- another person making this a right vs left issue. democrat vs republican. hey- it's not.
AACNY (New York)
The decisions before it ignored the law and relied on a tweet. It doesn't get more partisan than that. Claims that republican appointees are the problem are laughable.
Mary Huber (Philadelphia)
Please don't let Trump get away with spinning this is a clear victory for his ban, because it isn't.
Chicago Guy (Chicago, Il)
Why not just let Mitch McConnell decide all future cases? After all it's HIS Supreme Court not ours.

The highest court in the land is now a lapdog for the GOP.
Joseph Poole (NJ)
9 to 0. Do the math.
Patricia Beckenhaupt (SC)
and what about Saudi Arabia - or does he have selective amnesia
Alfie (Arizona)
It is more than time for an honest discussion of why or whether this country should accept Muslim immigrants. The .45% of the American military that self identifies as Muslim is not critical to our self defense, the students whose main attraction to our colleges is that they are paying full tuition (which Americans can't afford) are not necessary to our security or economic growth, the hearty embrace of American values shown by the American doctor who was just arrested for performing genital mutilations for an enthusiastic multitude of American Muslim parents is not encouraging, nor are the objections of Muslim college Associations to showings of "American Sniper". I really don't want to see us end up like Britain, where 40% of their Muslim population thinks Sharia law would be wonderful, and where within hours of the Manchester Concert Bombing NBC was interviewing hijab wearing citizens in the streets of Manchester talking about the police targeting Muslims. A large portion of the 65 million refugees on the move is Muslim, because their cultures have completely failed to figure out how to help their citizens survive in this century. I'll go for huge refugee camps supported by our functioning Western cultures in that part of the world, but I'm not convinced they would make happy, productive citizens here.
CJ (Arizona)
Why all the gross exaggerations ?! Why is everyone up in arms over a TEMPORARY order of protectionism ?! I am lost as to how the overwhelming concern for refugees & documented/undocumented internationals from these SPECIFIC countries are so important to allow into our country WITHOUT proper documents and/or have ZERO legitimate reason for visiting the United States ?!

Racism/sectarianism ? How ?.. the order restricts traveler's from specific countries NOT by color/religion. Get over yourselves please. What have the citizens of this country come to when we are more concerned about refugees & illegal immigrants than we are about our own people living here legally children starving, veterans homeless & committing suicides @ a rate that will soon surpass the death totals of any war we have ever fought in, etc. etc. Until everyone realizes OR has a sobering touch of tragedy from any of our countries own problems, the United States is slowly dying from within & 90% of the blame can go to our government & how Congress has led us down a path of self-destruction ! Move on people. Focus on your own lives, because until we all are fully accountable for each & every decision we make daily, the ground you all stand on to complain & ridicule becomes far less stable by the second.
Lisa (Sacramento)
Your comment highlighting the temporary aspects of the executive order illustrates how aggressive the "resistance " is. It's obvious the "real" controversy is at the permanent stage of this litigation but the "resistance " hopes we will never get there.
Leslie (New Jersey)
Refugees and others trying to enter the US are not coming without documentation. They ARE vetted and extensively so. Refugees go through a 18 month to 2 year process to get a visa. This starts with UN evaluation, and includes extensive background checks and repeat interviews by Homeland Security and the State Department.They even break up families to interview them separately. Even prior to these post 9/11 vetting procedures it was hard to get a visa to enter the US. So any claim by Trump and his supporters that "bad people" are "pouring in" is rubbish.
Atticus Hickman (Salt Lake City)
Every person who fears terror above anything else is in denial of the facts. Only 3,043 Americans have ever died from acts of terror, in all time. Every year around 40,000 people die from the flu and 445,000 have died of gun violence. But wait no one cares about that because its mostly poor people and minorities.
Confusedreader (USA)
Prove your fact that 44500 victims of gun violence were all poor and minorities. How many were sucides?
Joseph Poole (NJ)
Don't you get it? The point is to keep it that way.
Bradley (WI)
Preventive medicine, Atticus. Unlike EU. Get it?
Jon (NJ)
So, in Trump's America "The New Collosus" is anti-American. My grandfather, a Czech-American, was in the first wave at Normandy to fight fascism. I'll continue his legacy by fighting it here. Resist.
Here (There)
Jon: I'd get the name of the sonnet right first. Unless what you are resisting is spellcheck.
windyjammer (Illinois)
It's no surprise that Neil Gorsuch voted with Thomas and Alito. He's picking up where Scalia left off. An illegitimate justice in a stolen seat.
Joseph Poole (NJ)
The vote was 9 to 0. That includes all the appointees by Democratic administrations.
angel98 (nyc)
It was per curium decision. Look it up.
Patrick (Long Island N.Y.)
Let's get real, it's a stacked conservative court that will rule in favor of Trump.
GMooG (LA)
SCOTUS always has been, and always will be, stacked. You just don't like the fact that it isn't stacked your way now.
Here (There)
Patrick: Did you complain when the order was before a stacked liberal court filled with judges appointed under the Reid Rule?
Howard (NYC)
I guess the lower courts are a lot smarter than the Supreme Court since they repeatedly "chastised Trump for imposing a de facto ban of on Muslims entering the country".
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Several -- many? -- commenters have wondered out loud why the SC doesn't simply declare this case is moot.

I've wondered that myself, and that option will be open to the SC in the fall. But, just as I can imagine strong arguments for a "moot" ruling, I can imagine strong arguments against it. In essence, the Court is free to drop back 15 yards and punt (i.e. declare that the case is moot, and so the Court won't decide it on the merits), or instead to sidestep the "moot" question and decide the case on the merits.

Frankly, though it's possible, it's hard to imagine the Court would decide -- by a 9-0 vote, no less -- to take this case, receive briefs, hear oral arguments, etc., etc., etc., and then just declare that the case is moot. I'm confident we'll be getting a decision on the merits.
Here (There)
I think it more likely they will vacate the intolerable lower court orders and punt it back to the lower courts with instructions to reconsider in light of such-and-such a case. They'll do this next June, by which time events will have moved on.
Confusedreader (USA)
If the 90 days thing was no big deal...that is going to be moot anyway....why did libs fight so hard to stay the temporary order?
JP (Portland)
Is common sense finally coming back to America? This is like a breath of fresh air. Hallelujah!
ShakdidaGalimal (Chicago)
Almost. Three of the Justices used common sense and noted exceptions were already present in Trump EO, thus they support the President's orders 100%.

So three out of nine have common sense.
Michael (Germany)
This fall I am scheduled to give a couple of lectures in Chicago and attend a conference in Atlanta. Then on to New York and possibly Boston to visit friends. I have done some version of this every year since 1988, except for the five years I actually lived in the US. My academic scholarly interests are centered on US politics and history, esp. the Supreme Court.

This year, for the first time, I am seriously considering cancelling the trip, sad as it would make me. While I am not affected by the travel ban, I have some muslim friends and know citizens of countries who are affected. Would it be right to travel to the US nevertheless? Or do I need to show solidarity with those banned for no reason but a combination of their faith and their country of origin? Perhaps I should send the question to the NYT ethicist.
JMM (Dallas)
It has been said that those six countries do not have the documentation to authenticate their citizens' background. In my opinion it is risky business to allow migrants entry without some documentation. We certainly have to show our background information to obtain a passport as well as any required visas to work/live in other countries.
Snobote (Portland)
Definitely cancel
PaulDF (Central Florida)
Your specious argument is fraught with illogic. You've no doubt read the substance of this action, and it's only purpose and focus is the safety and well being of American citizens. There is no perminant ban, there is no racist component. It focuses on the very same countries Obama listed as terrorist enclaves. What loathing do you harbor for Americans that you would needlessly expose them to danger?
Jonas (Broncks)
The ban is mostly irrelevant at this points. What is relevant though is the fact that activist judges are reinterpreting the law to allow open borders and provide any person who shows up in our country Constitutional rights. What did our soldiers die for if anyone can just show up and take a piece of the pie?
Rw (canada)
When you boil it down, it seems clear that the only thing today's decision prohibits is travel by non-US citizens, from six countries, who want to come for a holiday.
Tuna (Milky Way)
“I fear that the court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country.”

Those with a Republican bent - even at the level of the SCOTUS - believe that we elect a king, and not a president, every 4 years. A "burden" on "Executive officials"? Pullleeeeaaaaassssseeee! Did it ever occur to any of these people that someone elected as POTUS is still capable of acting either incompetently or in their own self-interest? Are these the same justices that will later side with Trump in stating that the President (read: King), due to his position, is incapable of having emoluments?
ShakdidaGalimal (Chicago)
Do you realize it takes our staffed FBI and Executive branch many, many months, sometimes even years, to "vet" and clear appointments to our government and issue security clearances to lifetime citizens already in government employ ?
How is it you believe our government with lesser resources can "vet" completely unknown foreigners without navigable paper trail histories and known lifetime addresses, names, families, friends, and employers ?
What is it that is not understood ?
Craig (Vancouver BC)
The US Supreme Court is considered a joke in countries with well established rule of law, it garners no respect for it's overtly hard right Republican decisions.
PaulDF (Central Florida)
If you are distressed now; you will be apoplectic after the upcoming two appointments. Elections have consequences, and in this case, the consequence is a safer America.
Godfrey (Nairobi, Kenya)
Neil Gorsuch delivers. For those Democrats who sat out the election in disgust, these are the consequences.
SC (San Diego)
I appeal to all patriotic Americans. Any Supreme Court decision involving Neil Gorsuch should be considered null & void and should not be obeyed under any
circumstances. Gorsuch is an illegitimate justice and should be removed from the court along with his senate enabler, Addison McConnell. There is no other
Let's be absolutely candid: Trump appears to be a hater of immigrants that are not similar to him, i.e. white and Christian.
But that in and of itself does not mean that his attempt to completely stop the immigration of Muslims from those enumerated countries ipso facto is un-Constitutional. His personal feelings shouldn't be the deciding factor of legality. It is hard to reason away a concern that Muslim immigrants from the enumerated countries do not pose a greater risk than, say, Catholic Irishman (or Protestant ones, for that matter). After all, Muslims indeed are responsible for terrorist attacks on this soil (Boston Marathon, for one)--- and for many on that of our closest allies.
Must we wait for similar tragedies before we become more vigilant?
To the alarmists: Trump hasn't called for the internment of all US Muslims, nor for deportations (and I've heard of no right-winger, no matter how looney, who has--- and there are lots of them similar to Alex Jones out there). There also is a clause allowing for those who have "personal" American connections to come.
A little calm reasoning from the left (and I am a Bernie Sanders/Gene McCarthy type) wouldn't hurt this discussion even though one disagrees. On this issue (contrary to pretty much every other one, i.e. health care; Planned Parenthood; tax reform; military spending; infrastructure) I can see a valid disagreement coming from the right..
against rhetoric (iowa)
scotus has sided with trump vs the lower courts- what one expects in russia and turkey.
Publius (San Diego)
The travel ban will be upheld because, now, law has little to do with it. SCOTUS is foremost a political institution. Through their stay order, the justices have telegraphed for the public for how this is going to come out. I bemoan the state of American law. The justices have never been more elitist and out of touch. John Marshall made SCOTUS a great legal institution for all Americans, not a political vehicle for the powerful to garner even greater heft. He is surely turning over in his grave.
Bhaskar (Dallas, TX)
Today's SC decision provides an important glimpse towards how the SC will eventually rule on Trump's travel ban.

But the decision has a larger contour:
+ It frees a candidates to say during a campaign, what they will do without fear of being used against. And, people will know what they are voting for.
+ The courts cannot do the legislating like the lower courts did in this case (or when Scalia disregarded "a well regulated militia"). This underscored the separation of power.
+ The President enjoys the full executive powers in the interest of national security. Without such powers, the presidency would be a joke.

With today's decision, the SC might have well tweeted #MAGA.
Joseph Poole (NJ)
Yes. All 9 of them.
yeto (hot springs ar)
During this period of time wherein the SC has deemed it appropriate to allow a form of the "temporary travel ban" that was declared 6 months ago, I feel it prudent to either put a very large cover over the State of Libery or perhaps put her in storage for the long term. Her grace, beauty and enscribed message are not longer accurate nor representative of this country.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
"Any judge voting against this ban should rightly be impeached ...."

I expect the SC will rule for Trump, but if it doesn't, I very seriously doubt that many (as in "zero") Justices are worried about being impeached.
Aurora (Philadelphia)
What was the emergency? Trump's ban, had it stayed in effect from Jan. 27th, would have long since expired. And nothings happened. There have been no attacks. Simultaneously, liar Don has been claiming that his people are using "extreme vetting", which I imagine is something akin to having a secret plan to destroy ISIS in 60 days or better healthcare for much less money.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Several commenters write that Gorsuch, in effect, "took the loyalty oath" by voting to take this case. My understanding is that all 9 Justices voted to take the case.
Here (There)
We don't actually know nine justices voted to take the case. All we know is that no one dissented from the denial of certiorari. The Supreme Court does not announces votes to take the case (four out of nine are needed to).
Terry (Dallas)
The heck with them. Throw them all out and start over.
Redneck Moderate (California)
Let me see: 16 of the 911 terrorists were Saudi, 2 were UAE, and 1 Lebanese. So our resident president wants to ban visitors from none of these three countries, but from six different ones? In the parallel universe, this makes perfect sense. I'm glad we're all clear on that.
Jonas (Broncks)
The countries were selected by Obama. At least it's a start in securing our homeland from Islamists, but you are right in saying (sarcastically albeit) that it's going to have a really small impact.
claudia (new york)
The states mentioned in the ban do not have adequate measures to vet their citizens before they try to enter the USA. Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon are not failed states.
The ban does not include Indonesia in spite of the fact that it has the largest majority of Muslims in the whole world, and has seen a surge in Islamic terrorism, again because Indonesia is not a failed state
Quick: 9/11 happened how many years ago? Banning folks from those countries for an action that occurred so far in the past hardly "makes perfect sense." In today's world, the selected countries make perfect sense, yes.
Thierry Cartier (Isle de la Cite)
Seems like a no brainer unless you believe anybody from anywhere has a right to enter anytime they please. Otherwise why have borders? Clearly someone has to decide and who better than the President unless you think unelected judges from who knows where and with who knows what motives should be able to overrule the duly elected President of the United States. The Supreme Court should only decide who has the power and then go back to sleep unless they want to assume the nightmare of deciding an endless stream of boring cases. If the President gets too wacky, we can always hand over the power to someone else.
Patrick (Long Island N.Y.)
The conditional allowance of the ban is pointless as anyone outside the country could cultivate a relationship inside our country to get in just as the husband and wife did in the mass murder out in the Los Angeles area.
Dee Melville (New york)
It's a legal relationship. You can't get married legally over the Internet yet, and then fly them over here. One needs to be present at their own wedding. What this will do is add security on the way back into the United States. If a person in the U.S. goes to one of these countries, marries someone, and tries to Loop back in with their newly married and perhaps radicalized spouse, there will be an additional layer of security as a newly married couple. That's just the way it should be. It's a travel ban.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Thomas makes a good point that this distinction may be tough to draw (and arguably invalid even if it can easily be drawn). I'd be more concerned about this distinction if it weren't temporary. But it is. It's in effect only until the SC hears and decides the case; then it ends. If the SC's final decision keeps the same distinction, I'll be concerned -- not only because the distinction might be a tough one to draw but because such a decision would mean the SC agrees that courts may effectively "edit" the executive branch's exercise of authority clearly granted to it under the Constitution. I'd rather just see the SC rule, up or down, on the Constitutionality of the second EO as a whole.
Laura Frechette (Mentor OH)
So, the republican president wants to keep out the people that would harm us. Perhaps he and the republican members of Congress should leave our country before they do any more damage.
PaulDF (Central Florida)
I am VERY pleased to see this logical, reasonable, and constitutionally sound decision being made! The US is worth protecting from those who intend to do us harm. I support this Supreme Court, I support the intent of this decision, and I support our President for working to make American safe again.

I implore Democrats to re-evaluate their views. I see much Trump Derangement syndrome in the comments. I don't care if you dislike this President, when he does something right, support him!
mannyv (portland, or)
Law over equity. Equity lost because some people still believe in the rule of law.
Mei Mei (China)
The Supreme Court smacks the radical policy making lower courts and the complete victory will be handed to President Trump in the fall. Bravo Mr Trump, bravo.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
This interesting sentence appears in Thomas' concurring/dissenting opinion:

"And I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed."

As most lawyers will tell you, a 9-0 vote to take a case usually means that the Court is planning to reverse. I emphasize "usually," though. Though I've always expected the SC would rule for Trump on the second EO, I don't assign much weight -- a little, but not much -- to the Court's actual decision to take the case.
Christopher (Rillo)
Although many commentators predict that the issue before the Court will turn on Presidential power, with some darkly commenting that tyranny is at stake, the opinion will probably approach from a different vector, which is Congressional power. The statute, INA section 212(f), vests seemingly absolute discretion in the President to suspend as he or she sees fit the entry of any class of aliens for any period of time. During the Iranian hostage crisis, President Carter used this statute to bar Iranians from entering our nation. The real issue is whether Congress has that power to prohibit entry (it undoubtedly does) and whether courts should rewrite the statute because the president is named Donald Trump(they should not). As we move through these intensely partisan times, we have to realize that our institutions are critical. If you deny President Trump the right to exercise his authority lawfully granted by Congress, be prepared for that ruling to bind his successor, who may be trying to achieve a goal with which you agree.
John H (Fort Collins, CO)
This overwrought situation shows a complete lack of perspective. The so-called "ban" is a 90-day period during which the administration has committed to develop better means for screening immigrants. If they fail to do so, or if the requirements are overly burdensome, that is the appropriate time for legal action.
Cod (MA)
Nobody has the right to enter a sovereign nation without proper protocols, whatever that nation deems necessary. This includes the US.
We as American citizens can not just waltz around the world and go where ever or for how ever long we please. It is a real world out there full of other countries who have laws. We have them too, sometimes, maybe.
Bungo (California)
A good start as far as it goes, but why were Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. not included in the ban?
claudia (new york)
Because they have the "ability" to vet their citizens, which the countries mentioned in the ban don't. They are not failed states
Sam (Canada)
That is wrong. Iranians are the most progressive part of of American society. Why ban Iranian people? I know the governments have no relationship but this hurts the people.
ShakdidaGalimal (Chicago)
Those nations have sufficient governmental cooperation and paperwork and vetting and history according to our 17 Intelligence agencies.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
"Trump will get his ban in its entirety."

All that's up for decision is Trump's second executive order. I seriously doubt we'd even be having this conversation if Trump has put forth the second executive order in the first place.

But Trump over-reached with the first EO, with its "cute" reference to "minority religions" (whose members, Trump ordered in the first EO, were to be given preference in immigration decisions -- clearly a religion-based preference).

I don't doubt for a nanosecond that Trump intends the second EO to mean exactly the same thing as the first EO, and he certainly didn't improve his odds with his intemperate tweets a few weeks back, lamenting the DOJ's decision to submit the second EO rather than force the issue on the first EO. Nevertheless, on its face, the second EO is much different from the first EO. No religious discrimination. Possibly it will be applied in a discriminatory manner, but we don't know that since it's never been applied.

If we thus exclude "on its face" and "as applied" unconstitutionality, what's left? Nothing, of course, if one limits oneself to traditional Constitutional jurisprudence. But if one exercises a bit of imagination, it may be different: Why, after all, shouldn't a court simply predict that the President will apply an EO in a religiously discriminatory manner -- especially when the President said that very thing in campaign speeches? Why wait to see how an EO is applied, when a judge can just tell us ahead of time?
ShakdidaGalimal (Chicago)
The minority religions are those being slaughtered and oppressed and in need of asylum.
Somehow my dimmer fellow Americans prefer hatred of Trump over saving actual lives in need.
Cee (NYC)
Seems like the clock has run out on whether the ban is 90 days or 120 days and regardless of when one starts the clock.

With that said, the travel ban seems to be focusing on the wrong thing.

Since 9/11, we've had more death due to domestic terrorism than international terrorism (perhaps 15).

Medical deaths per year due to lack of insurance outnumber death to terrorism by about 500 to 1 (north of 20,000).

Gun suicides and homicides outpace medical deaths due to lack of insurance by more than 60% (north of 32,000).

Opioid deaths exceed gun death by at least 50% (over 50,000).

What are our priorities?
JBG (Las Vegas)
Suppose the Supreme Court will recall that our forefathers were religiously persecuted refugee immigrants with no "bona fide relationship" to any Native Americans?
Snobote (Portland)
Ummm, most people in USA don't have the "forefathers" in their family tree.
I do and i am totally cool with efforts to deal with the real threat of islamic terrorists coming to my country on visas.
Matt Andersson (Chicago)
The Supreme Court is not making judgments in law, but rather in ideology, concerning immigration bans. The all believe, and were carefully chosen so, in the terror construct. This ideological loyalty was also recently ratified by their decision in favor of Bush administration officials in post-911 litigation rules, as reported by the NYT: It is not otherwise rational to expect their independence, or their ability to reason clearly in law, over these jurisprudence issues which have been overtaken by state solidarity.
Kareena (Florida)
I hate to burst your bubbles, but if terrorists want to get in our country they will. No wall or fence will keep them out. Sorry..
PaulDF (Central Florida)
So, we should just forego all attempts to keep America safe?

Do you lock your doors or not?
RB (West Palm Beach)
Don't worry Trump is building the wall and the Koch brothers will be paying for it.
Johnchas (Michigan)
If the twitter in chief & his administration handled this better it wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. But then he would have had to admit his claims about Muslim immigrants were bogus to begin with. The vetting process under Obama was already very strict already but "the Donald" has such a tenuous relationship with truth & fact that he was bound to trip over his own falsehoods.
Patrick (Long Island N.Y.)
Don Trump, the Aryan, is profoundly paranoid of Blacks, His-panics, and Muslims. He has turned America into a blockaded cave. I personally have nothing to fear from refugees who fled war to find peace. Is that why they are not welcome by the Republican war machine? Are the Republican militants fearful that America's warmongering ways are in jeopardy?
Essar (Berkeley)
And what right does the US now have to have any presence in Syria, let alone bomb within its borders?
Radagast (Kenilworth)
Did they vet Columbus?
USA first (Australia)
A very healthy, SANE decision !
mikeoshea (New York City)
The first question on the test for American citizenship is: What is the Supreme Law of the land? The answer is: The Constitution.

But the Constitution itself makes no mention of a test for citizenship, or passports, or visas. These were introduced in the mid 1920's when Irish and Italian groups expressed their anger at the fact that Asian immigrants, especially the Chinese, were, with their work and educational ethics, doing relatively well. They pressured politicians to slow this down (at least).

Thus the disgraceful "Yellow Laws" were created. As well as passports and visas, which Lafayette and others who helped us attain our independence, never had to undergo. Of course, they were white. And most of the people Trump wants to keep out are also not white. Coincidence?
Here (There)
Restrictions on Chinese immigration go back to the 19th century. The 1921 and 1924 immigration acts were principally aimed at reducing inflows from southern and eastern Europe.
Mike (NYC)
This is not a Constitutional issue.

Foreigners with no connection to the US who are on foreign soil have zero Constitutional rights, like it or not. Our Constitution is for US, not foreigners.

The president can decide, in his sole discretion, who comes in and who does not.

Don't like it? Elect someone else.

From a legal standpoint, that's how this needs to turn out.
Colin (Virginia)
Totally agreed. From a purely legal standpoint, you are almost right on. (Only error is that non-US citizens on foreign territory under de facto US sovereignty have some Constitutional rights.) If this comes out any other way, it will be because of politics.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)

I agree, though I don't mind the SC concluding that the First Amendment "trumps" the Constitution's grant of authority to the President on immigration matters. I DON'T think it's OK for the President to exercise his authority over immigration to exclude applicants based on religious grounds, and I think the first EO (1/30/17) tried to do just that.

But the second EO was different.

"On its face," the second EO (3/6/17) made no religion-based distinctions -- not even the first EO's reference to "minority religions" (clearly meaning "anything but Islam"). Nor was the second EO unconstitutional "as applied," since, after all, it was NOT applied: it was enjoined.

All that leaves to support these injunctions is a "basis" that I've always expected the SC would reject: that the judicial branch may nullify the executive branch's exercise of its indisputable authority over immigration based on the judicial branch's prediction that the executive branch will implement an executive order in a discriminatory manner.

What can one even say in response to such an argument, other than -- "Huh?"
Edward Lindon (Taipei, Taiwan)
"The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [...] ruled on statutory rather than constitutional grounds, saying Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority granted him by Congress."

So it seems the law is actually a rather complex and subtle area that doesn't lend itself well to armchair theorizing and sweeping statements...
RK (Long Island, NY)
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in the fall, Gorsuch, by siding with the most conservative judges in the court now, has shown his true color. That, I'm afraid, would have adverse consequences for issues far beyond the travel ban.

If Justice Kennedy retires as rumored and Trump gets to make another pick, the Supreme Court will lean too right and the decisions handed out would have wide ranging effect for a long time to come.
PaulDF (Central Florida)
But, of course, you'd have no problem with the court leaning far to the left?

I'm sorry, but to quote the worst President in my lifetime, "Elections have consequences."
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
No, not too far... Just about right...
Mark (South Philly)
This travel ban is a good start. We can abandon these discussions when bad actors from the travel-ban affected countries start behaving. Until then, I appreciate the attention Trump has given this issue as well as the action he has taken. None of us, liberal or conservative, should be willing to risk American lives because the progressive ideology to do so is in vogue.
Edward Lindon (Taipei, Taiwan)
I hope you take the same non-partisan line when discussing the degradation of the environment, healthcare and gun ownership, all of which entail widespread and serious "risk to American lives".
Snobote (Portland)
Yes we dont want people visiting from those six countries degrading the environment or wielding weapons or getting free healthcare either
George Xanich (Bethel, Maine)
Partial victory and complete vindication for President Trump. The reimplementation of certain elements of the travel moratorium provides rule of law rather political persuasions to determine the legality of the executive order. Semantics, hysteria, sophistry and social proclivities will not play factors in deciding the fate of Trump's executive orders. The question to be decided: does the president have the constitutional authority to restrict immigration and implement an exit layer of vetting for security reasons. 16 years of war have passed and America has a foothold in the Middle East; and as long that presence remains, America is at risk! To the potential radical fundamentalists, they view America's strengths (liberal immigration policies and acceptance of refugees) as its greatest weakness. To request an additional layer of security from the 7 listed nations whose screening process is suspect, does not constitute a Muslim ban or a litmus test of banning Muslims from certain countries. The Trump order is an exercise of his constitutional authority and despite his bombastic behavior and empty rhetoric, the courts will rule freely and unregulated from societal hysteria.
M (Seattle)
Just proves the Appeals Courts are not interested in defending the Constitution, but just want to advance a partisan agenda. Sad.
Dan (<br/>)
Your premise is predicated on which way the courts rule. Rule in the favor of your political leanings, then a great job was accomplished by the justices. Rule against, then the justices are "activist", or in your terms, partisan.
H Mansfield (Florida)
“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” The irony is beyond staggering!
PaulDF (Central Florida)
The only irony I see is that the left continues it's insolent pouting, it's stammering temper-tantrum, and it's non-stop Trump Derangement Syndrome with regard to each and every action and policy of this President.

Look at the ISSUES and FACTS, and quit being a contrarian without thought or logical argument. This was a GOOD decision that needed to be made! These people have vowed to destroy us!! What part of that don't you understand??
Hobbes (Miami)
I hope the SC rules in favor of Trump. The liberals should stop deluding first. It is not a religious ban. From India to Saudi Arabia, Muslims can freely enter America, because those countries have the necessary resources to collect information about their own people. In contrast, those 6 countries are the worst of the worst. They don't even have a functioning government, some are failing or failed, and they lack any resources to vet those who travel abroad. No wonder Obama collected the information and Trump is implementing the ban. How many immigrants come to America from these 6 countries? India, China, and Nigeria top the list on legal immigrants, and of course you have illegals from Mexico and nearby countries. Those countries are not banned, so what is the fuss about banning people from just 6 countries, who may not send a lot of people in the first place. Also, President has every right to allow or ban any people from entering a country. Earlier, Jews during the Second World War was not allowed inside the country for political reasons. Now, it is those Syrian refugees, who are not vetted by the Syrian government and the Syrian President mentioned there could be possible terrorists from the refugees entering western countries. I don't know why we should not ban those people. Do liberals really want more terrorist attacks like London and Paris or the rapes like in Germany and Sweden? Holding a candle and saying we will be strong will not prevent any terrorist attacks.
Chris (bucks county PA)
I disagree with Trump on almost everything except for this. Having a Liberal attitude towards accepting others is great but if it causes a country to allow in people from cultures who don't share those values it isn't.
Abbas (Iran)
I disagree with Trump order, though I agree there are some policies wrong in our government. Clearly I wonder why the most radical terrorist coyntry is not included. Why? Because of selling weapons?!
Seonbin song (Blacksburg, VA)
I'd like to point out that refugees from Syria haven't posed a threat at all to the USA. Also, using that Jew example is kind of an awful argument
will (oakland)
The real question is how the Supreme Court justified unconstitutional religious discrimination and unlawful national origin discrimination against immigrants and refugees for even a few days, much less three months.
Stratman (MD)
Name the Constitutional provision that guarantees foreign nationals unregulated entry to the U.S.
nogard (California)
The truth is that the supreme Court will not be deciding on whether or not Trump's ban is constitutional since the president is clearly given that power, but whether they have the integrity and honesty to rule on the law and not upon their own political and personal whims, beliefs or personal opposition to this president. Any judge voting against this ban should rightly be impeached by the congress and removed from the bench for gross misconduct and dereliction of duty.
Dave (Chicago)
It gets tougher and tougher to be proud of America. And I think of all he brave Americans who have given their lives defending America. This isn't what they died for.
DanielMarcMD (Virginia)
Hey liberals. The SCOTUS voted 9-0 to allow the "Trump Travel Ban" to be reinstated until they decide in the fall about the order in its entirety.
9-0. Where is your outrage? Are you screaming at the liberal justices on the court? I can't hear you.....
JMM (Dallas)
You are not telling the whole truth. The SCOTUS placed stipulations on the ban. There are now certain requirements for migrants from those six countries to meet and not all of the migrants will qualify.
Here (There)
JMM: The kicker is that the administration gets to decide who to left in, and only the Supreme Court can review that. The lower courts no longer have jurisdiction. I expect requirements of proof most would-be migrants will be unable to meet. Sad!
Majortrout (Montreal)
I see Gorsuch is starting to show his Republican colours with his 2 recent decisions of the Supreme Court. Birds of a feather flock together, sadly to the detriment of the people of the United States.
M (Seattle)
It was unanimous.
PaulDF (Central Florida)
Gorsuch was not appointed to liberally interpret the Constitution. Not then, not now, not ever. Neither will the next choice. Neither will the choice after that.

You are going to have to get a grip on reality, because elections do, in fact, have consequences. Are you still thinking Hillary was the right candidate?
Confusedreader (USA)
I see a judge interpreting the law as written and with respect to constitutional powers of the Executive Branch. No opioninating like the lower court....
Elisabeth Y. (Pennsylvania)
You know the liberals have been completely and totally defeated on Everything since Trump took office.. Not a single victory on Anything.. Thank God
Liberty Apples (Providence)
The National Embarrassment: ` “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, ...'

Does that include landlords who discriminate based on race?
Here (There)
Five justices beat four lower courts any day. Winning!
Finally some sanity.
Sam (Canada)
yeah. All problems solved.
Ed (Dc)
Stay in Canada
Dan (<br/>)
I welcome our Canadian neighbors. When they visit they bring a fresh outlook on sanity and respect for others.
treabeton (new hartford, ny)
It has been some time since Mr. Trump sounded the alarm concerning terrorists who may be intent on entering our country. Query: How, specifically, have you tightened our vetting process in the interim to prevent harm to America?
David (Brooklyn)
Americans depend on people whom they've never met and have no social or professional connections to. Yet, without those foreign strangers upon whom we count, how would America survive. Mixed in with the bad apples from a few Islamic nations are our friends. What are we doing to them? What are our chances when America's reputation in the world is created by the way we treat those friends that we have in those hostile countries?
Chris (bucks county PA)
Problem is how do you tell the "bad apples" from our friends among people from this area of the world? Eddie Haskall was a bad apple people who would blow up children at a concert warrant a different description. I'm on the left side of the aisle on most issues but not this one. Our "friends" in these countries overwhelmingly support treating women like second class citizens and homosexuals even worse. I think what's going on in England right now should serve as fair warning.
Here (There)
Eddie Haskell may have been charmingly deceitful of adults, and likely was a poor influence on Wally and the Beaver, but he never actually did anything terribly wrong. At worst mild mischief, even by 1950s standards.
ellen post (somewhere over the rainbow)
I wonder if the native Americans should have thought of this "travel ban" before Columbus and the rest of colonial Europe came to this continent.
David (Chapel Hill)
You really must be somewhere over the rainbow.
joanne (Pennsylvania)
@ David
Funny comment. You made me laugh.
joanne (Pennsylvania)
Some lawyers I spoke with believe that by granting cert, SCOTUS added on an issue that was raised by those bringing suit---that would be that the case could be a moot point since the 120 day period of the order will have expired before SCOTUS would decide the case.
Mooted probably will be the case. Might not even get to the merits of the case. Finally, the court's ruling may end up being totally "unworkable".

That would be since this compromise will add burden to officials deciding--on peril of contempt--whether people from the 6 nations desiring to enter the US have a sufficient connection to someone here. Or an entity here.
Then the compromise will bring more and more litigation, who knows what "a bona fide relationship" even means. Or how it came about. Plus previous courts rulings will be a burden.
Here (There)
I am a lawyer. The question of when the justification should be made by the administration is addressed within the court's opinion, which I sincerely urge you to read before posting again.
Faith (Indiana, PA)
That sounds a wee bit like you want to impinge upon her rights to free speech, counsel. We still do have the First Amendment, granting us the right to say whatever we feel. That includes Mr. Trump's right to call it a Travel Ban to keep out Muslims, then say it wasn't based on religion.
joanne (Pennsylvania)
@ Faith
As a point of fact, Trump calling it a Muslim Ban has hurt him in the courts thus far.
His ban directly implies religious discrimination.
They probably won't touch this case with a ten foot pole, since it will cement their legacy as toadies for Trump.

Obviously Trump's ban is discrimination based on religion.
If you followed my post, you'd realize prominent attorneys think this is a doomed case. And one set to be avoided.
No offense, but I'm not getting your point of "her rights to counsel." I never mentioned that. What I wrote is an interpretation of initial findings.
If you follow the case closely, you see SCOTUS is in a major avoidance routine, knowing it is a bad case for them. Will they go down in history advocating religious discrimination? Roberts won't do it.
Jefflz (San Franciso)
The Roberts majority gave us the Citizens United decision allowing dark corporate money to flow without limit into the electoral process at every level. Roberts and his followers have done more to destroy the underpinnings of American democracy than any other force in modern times.

Perhaps Roberts and his fellow-minded conservatives have taken in the results of the catastrophic Citizens United decision and will see fit to rectify the error of their ways and by protecting our failing democracy with the SCOTUS pending ruling and rulings to come. I personally am not holding my breath in anticipation.
Elliot (NYC)
The administration's claimed rationale for the ban - to firm up immigration procedures during a temporary period - is clearly a lie. Judicial analysis has a way of seeing through lies, because lies are inherently incapable of being intellectually sustainable and consistent with reality.

Now we will get a chance to see which justices think like lawyers, and which are pure ideological hacks.
PaulDF (Central Florida)
I'm VERY glad that SCOTUS sees it differently than you.
Carol (Victoria, BC)
America has abdicated its role as leader of the Free World with the election of Donald Trump and this ruling. It is now Canada that best represents the American values inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Lady Liberty should be removed as she not only no longer represents American values, but your policy now makes a mockery of her words.

Canadians feel that we are witnessing an amazing period in history. For the first time in any person's lifetime, the position of leader of the free world is vacant. As our Foreign Affairs Minister (U.S. equivalent of Secretary of State) Chrystia Freeland said this month in an extraordinary speech, Canada will forge its own path on the world stage because we can no longer rely on Washington for global leadership.“The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership puts in sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course,” . “To say this is not controversial: It is a fact.” Freeland concluded.
Here (There)
"the American values inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!""

That is not on the Statue of Liberty. It is on a plaque in the museum downstairs, where it is curated and put in proper context. Sorta like the Confederate flags and other things that meant a lot in the 19th century.
Concerned (Brookline, MA)
And I suppose in your opinion the proper context is the addition of ".Not"
Joe O'Malley (Buffalo, NY)
Letting in "refugees" walk across the US border into Canada illegally to be welcomed by smiling RCMP officers is not called leadership. It's called stupidity.
andy b (Hudson FL.)
With Gorsuch on the court there is no doubt in my mind that Trump will win this battle. We on the left have to accept that the Supreme Court is lost to us for a generation. Depressing as that is, we must continue the struggle against fascism ,Trump and his literal and figurative heirs.
Mary (Seattle)
How many days since Trump initially filed this? How many terrorist attacks by foreigners who flew in during that time have happened here?
Joseph Poole (NJ)
The question is, how many WILL happen?
David (Chapel Hill)
Not a strong argument, Mary. It's a preventative measure. A measure England & others didn't and don't have; and they have paid the price time a few times over.
angel98 (nyc)
The ones in England and other EU countries were Citizens not tourists or refugees.
Fred Peach (california)
Who's the leader of our club that's made for you and me Donald Trump, Donald Trump T R U M P. The People president that is giving us HOPE and CHANGE an American hero.
Sam (Richardson)
Should you somehow feel that who ever wants to come here has the right to do so, then i suggest you open the doors and windows to your house, let them come in. feed them what they want. pay their medical bills. put some money in the account for them, give them food stamps and a welfare check. Oh, and they might not vote for you. they may be here to cause this country harm. but that is ok with you, right?-- those folks have the right to come do what they want, right?

You people need a mirror. Go look in it. Trump is not the enemy as so many of you claim. A country, to be a country, must control its borders. Out of control prejudicial judgement is an enemy to the country, and many of you are all eaten up with it.
PaulDF (Central Florida)
notice that ZERO liberals can offer an argument to your statements? They can't, because they know you are right.
Bruce (Connecticut)
How can the president state that he "cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm” (without noting how very few Americans die at the hands of terrorists) while at the same time allow people to obtain the means to kill thousand of Americans each year, particularly mass killings with assault weapons?

Someone needs to study who truly terrifies Americans: Foreign terrorists or someone from your town with deadly weapons.
Maggie (Calif)
Correct. Most of our terriosts were born right here in the USA, where you can buy guns on the street corner and go to a mall and start shooting or just go home and shoot your spouse. Gotta love the NRA
PaulDF (Central Florida)
Perspective is everything. How many millions of Americans own the means of self-defense? I can state with 100% certainty that each and every one of mine are defensive weapons, and none of them have ever "assaulted" anyone. I encourage all Americans who believe in the Constitution and their natural right of self-defense, to arm themselves and become proficient in self defense.
Jay (NC)
If Democrats weren't allowed to have guns, this problem would go away. Finally common-sense gun control we can all agree on: no guns for Democrats. Ever.
Job (Ithaca)
MSNBC has been portraying the Supreme Courts Order as a minor setback for the parties seeking to enjoin the Presidents executive Order. The producers should take a peek at the comments here, and they'd understand that if you're not in the fake news business, this judicial Order is almost a total vindication of the Presidents Order. The case may be concluded during the October term, but its already clear that most of the Justices recognize that the Executive has the requisite authority to enter orders of this nature.
Robert Kerry (Oakland)
Uh, excuse me, but, the reason stipulated for the travel ban was that the current clown show posing as an administration needed 120 more days to put in something it called "extreme vetting" or, maybe it was "extreme amazing vetting", but as those of us who reside in the real world have noted,
more than 120 days have passed and there is no extreme vetting plan amazing or otherwise at the ready. This is of course because, like the Trump candidacy, the administration of Our Fake So Called President is made up of gimmicky lies repeated by professional liars. Where is that extreme vetting plan? Send in the clowns.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
but as those of us who reside in the real world have noted,
more than 120 days have passed and there is no extreme vetting plan amazing or otherwise at the ready


Review of the vetting plans was enjoined by the lower courts
Here (There)
An injunction prevented the vetting. As it happens, we have 120 days until late October.
PaulDF (Central Florida)
Now, that SCOTUS allows, watch it happen. What would you prefer? Another 9/11 style attack? Would that be preferable to the current administration's efforts to keep YOU safe?
Usok (Houston)
My understanding of this executive order is to provide more time for authority to do background check and make sure there is no other security related issues for the applicants. It is just a temporary delay. Why does it need Supreme Court intervention? Don't they have enough to do in their plate already?
Rodrian Roadeye (Pottsville,PA)
At the expense of adding to the list of those who think I'm being prejudiced I must say that any efforts to prevent illegals and undesirables from coming in is noble. The forest is at risk of becoming populated with so many deer that the health of the entire herd is being threatened. We show more intelligence in dealing with overpopulation matters in nature than in our own species. We had immigration laws for decades that our government failed to enforce and we will pay a high price for that lack of insight.
Warren (Shelton, Connecticut)
So how is that gap review going Mr. Trump? Oh, forgot to get is started? Gee, what a surprise.
jhanzel (Glenview, Illinois)
So he declares it a "victory" when a small bit of his first EO gets approved?

By now, shouldn't all of that "extreme vetting" be in place so the ban isn't needed?
Campesino (Denver, CO)
So he declares it a "victory" when a small bit of his first EO gets approved?


Almost all of it was approved
JMM (Dallas)
No Campesino, it wasn't almost all that was approved. Actually, no ruling will be made until October. For now, there are restrictions on migrants from the six countries.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Read the SCOTUS order. If you can't understand it, get help... Common sense and and an understanding of the Constitutional requirement that the judiciary respect the role of the Chief Executive prevailed. We can now see the beginning of the end for left wing judicial activism...
Malek Rejal (UK)
It is really disturbing to see the protector of the constitution are the one who violated it there's no words of sorrow I could express myself just my shocking
Patrick (Long Island N.Y.)
American citizen's will probably be treated in kind by the world.
Chris (bucks county PA)
I doubt it. I'm willing to bet the majority of people in the EU would rather have American tourists instead of those from the Middle East.
Rocky (Space Coast, Florida)
It is the US Constitution; not the World Constitution.
That the French gave us a gift (the Statue of Liberty) with certain words attached to it hardly means we are somehow obligated to take in every refugee who'd like to come here and get on welfare. We never have before; why suddenly now?

Grow up Libs. The USA is the land of the free and the home of the brave; not Freelunchia.

As for Trump? Of course he's well within his power to ban travel for the national security just as even the far left Supremes agreed. The ONLY dissenters were those on the right who thought the order to resume the ban didn't go far enough.
Jefflz (San Franciso)
The US is now a Banana Republic with a so-called president whose election may well have been stolen by a foreign power,
Tyler (Florida)
Actually the law as currently written explicitly says he can't suspend entry for immigrants based on nation of origin. They wrote that in order to abolish the quota system we'd been using for years, as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Here (There)
The "Give me your tired ..." has nothing to do with the French gift of the Statue of Liberty. Emma Lazarus was asked to write a poem for use in fundraising for erecting the statue. It is not written on it. Anywhere.
Steve Snow (Suwanee, Georgia)
These "so called judges" have given a high five to division and intolerance that this... president so much represents. I was hoping that I wouldn't see the day when this nation began retrograde maneuvers against progress. Borne back, ceaselessly, into the past.
pj (new york)
you mean the UNANIMOUS Sup Ct?
ThatCar (Atlanta, GA)
Regarding the Justice Thomas' argument in dissent that "the court’s opinion would 'prove unworkable' for officials at consulates around the world and would invite 'a flood of litigation' from people denied entry," since when are Constitutional rights abrogated when their vindication is administratively difficult?
Jersey Mom (Princeton, NJ)
You do understand that non-US citizens who are also outside of the US have no Constitutional rights, right? There is no Constitutional right for a non-US citizen to enter the US.
ellen post (somewhere over the rainbow)
I know Muslim Americans who voted for Trump in hope of getting some tax cuts. They said, "Nah, this is just campaign talk."

Same story with Jewish, Cuban, Black, Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Indian, etc. Americans. It is not just Rustbelt and rural white with xenophobia, etc.

We have already seen a significant rise in hate crimes ...
Steve hunter (Seattle)
Expect other countries to impose travel bans on Americans.
AnotherView (States)
Well, what did you expect from Gorsesch and CO. The Republicans
did not let Obama chose the judge that he was legally obligated to do.
We are going to have to live with this court.
Steve W (Ford)
9 to 0 decision. Not exactly just Republican judges but don't let facts influence your bias. I'm sure it doesn't in any other areas.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Read the order. Or at least read the article. You will find either to be rather informative. The SCOTUS decision was joined in by the Clinton and Obama appointees...
pj (new york)
LOL! The partisan blinders are amazing. This was a 9-0 decision as it should be. Statutorily and by SCOTUS precedent, the President has the absolute right to impose this executive order based on the SIX NATIONS selected by the Obama administration as posing a danger to the USA..
Jim Steinberg (Fresno, California)
Trump: “As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm...” Therefore, I am excluding tens of millions of would-be Muslim immigrants on the chance that one or more may wish to do us harm (even though every single one would have to go through thorough questioning and vetting).
Dave L (Detroit)
Good spin NYT.... Good Spin
Steve W (Ford)
There seems to be a large amount of historical ignorance on the part of the readers of the Times. The US has a long history of excluding various ethnic, racial and other groups throughout it's history. In the modern era these exclusionary policies were championed by progressives, labor unions and eugenicists along with a smattering of other racist.
Progressives have a long history of opposing racial and ethnic minorities until very, very recently. Heck the progressives of an earlier era championed eugenics as a "cure" for idiocy and race mixing. Hitler was only following the lead of Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendell Holmes and the many Progressives who voiced full throated support for sterilization and exclusion of defective people and races!
The Catholic Church was one of the main groups that opposed these awful policies.
If one knows history one cannot help but cry for the stupidity of modern progressives and their a-historical beliefs.
Faith (Indiana, PA)
We also have a history of slavery. Things done in the past aren't always noble, which is why they change.
Brian (Oakland, CA)
Racism and xenophobia will destroy us.
William Rodham (Hope)
Of course the president can issue a travel ban!
So during World War II a travel ban against the Germans and the Japanese is an unconstitutional ban against all Christians and all Asians?
Get real!
Jason Galbraith (Little Elm, Texas)
To prevent the case from becoming moot, Trump will almost certainly make the ban on individuals from the six named countries permanent at the expiration of the 90-day period. This in turn should lead to the ban being rejected in its entirety.
dyeus (.)
What’s most sad is the unquestioned loyalty Trump requires, so no matter what Gorsuch does it will always be viewed differently than any of the other judges. Sins cast long shadows.
Marcichka (British Columbia)
This is my SCOTUS? This is my country? I don't get it. What happened to our wonderful land of religious liberty? I am ashamed of this government (which I previously worked for and loved) and am sure glad I live in Canada.
Mark (Mark-A-Largo, Fl)
Oh thank God, I feel so much safer now because the terrorists in those countries had no idea we were on to them, have been taken by surprise and wont be able to get into the US.
Snobote (Portland)
Thank you, Jesus!
wildwest (Philadelphia)
Jesus would be profiled, strip searched and dragged off to Guantanamo.
Maria Ashot (EU)
Don't be so awfully certain Jesus agrees with you. "Ye are all one in Jesus Christ," remember? Galatians 3:28.
andy b (Hudson FL.)
Burroughs (Western Lands)
Will Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from this case? Last fall, she publicly stated that should Trump be elected president she would move to New Zealand. I'm not sure that she has applied for immigration to NZ, but we should take her at her word. Obviously, a petitioner for immigration to another country, as well as someone rejecting the president's election, is a prejudiced justice. I expect this summer there will be more and more pressure on her to admit that her judicial temperament as well as her personal animus to Trump should disqualify her from ruling on the "ban."
Here (There)
I have wondered why they did not ask for her to recuse herself. The only thing I can think of is that it would still take five votes for Trump to win (he loses on 4-4) and it might tick off the other justices.
William (Chicago)
Score one for the good guys...actually we have been doing pretty decent lately.
monee (NY)
Today is the first day that I enjoyed the NYTimes in a very, very long time. The paper was not filled with hate for Trump!!!! Yes, what a pleasure to be able to read most of the paper instead of ignoring the miserable anti Trump articles. Thank you. Of course the comments are still filled with hate but I can easily ignore them. Thank you.
Bill Q. (Mexico)
What Trump wants is "people who can love the United States and all of its citizens." By that standard, he's got to go: during his campaign he kept wanting to punch US citizens at his rallies.
Chris (Charlotte)
The President gets to decide this issue. That courts tried to find excuses to take this power away and run immigration policy from the bench was a disgrace. Thank goodness the Supreme Court has restored some basic common sense to the separation of powers.
TM (Los Angeles)
Trump says he wants a 90 day ban so they can properly assess the entry rules and make sure we are properly screening. He has been in office over 5 months. Wouldn't this already be done if it was so important?
Robin (Annapolis)
Good point. But who gets to decide what's important. the president of the United States that's who.
Rodger Lodger (NYC)
I always thought it was near-absurd to say non-citizens not in the country have constitutional rights to get here and can't be discriminated against. There's another big story that I haven't seen yet in the media: Gorsuch dissented in a case that favored same-sex marriage off-spring.
Joan C (NYC)
In the years to come, we can all reminisce about that quaint notion of checks balances is our sad and tattered Constitution.
angel98 (nyc)
A victory for national security, please! Trump has done more damage in his five months to US standing in the world, domestic security and domestic and international harmony. The US is fast becoming a pariah state with don the con at the wheel.
Jersey Mom (Princeton, NJ)
Yeah, I noticed how nobody wants to come here anymore.
NowYouKnow (Houston, Texas)
By October the new vetting procedure will be rolled out, tested, and implemented . Hopefully it will keep us safe from the guys who go back and forth to those "countries of concern" as Obama called them.
RJPost (Baltimore)
Always a problem when a common sense decision relies on Chief Justice Roberts. He saddled us with the disaster known as Obamacare and seems reliably unreliable
Hari Prasad (Washington, D.C.)
See the findings of a detailed research study:There is no policy justification for the ban on people from these six countries. Perhaps it would be more logical in combating terrorism to place restrictions on home-grown right-wing terrorists:
Judyw (cumberland, MD)
I think this is a good decision. I do wish the court had defined what is meant by “bona fide” relationship. The examples given seem to exclude refugees. I know some of the resettlement organizations are going to claim that having someone referred to them by UNHCR constitutes a “bona fide” relationship. I think that is a stretch too far. The US Constitution should not cover any one abroad applying for refugee status.

We need to refine our refugee law. It should exclude refugees coming from countries from which it is almost impossible to have any reliable vetting. Also we should not accept refugees referred by the UNHCR. Remember the UNHCR is not interested in security. They are only interested in getting the US to accept anyone they send to US resettlement organizations. The UNHCR is not concerned with US security and thus anyone they select should be automatically denied as a candidate for resettlement in the US.
angel98 (nyc)
Please, do some research, then you will see that this 'ban' has nothing to do with security and everything to do fanning the flames of prejudice to supply red meat to his base.

All you suggest has been in place for years. The vetting system can take up to two years and involves countless agencies internationally and domestically, the US always has the last word on who gets to come here not the UNHRC or any other body. And anyone who cannot be 100% thoroughly vetted has always been denied. This ban is merely an obscene display of prejudice and racism.
Joe Schmoe (Brooklyn)
One of the numerous examples of the hypocritical thinking of today's liberals is as follows. They argue that Americas who are disturbed by the cultural changes wrought by immigrant populations better get used to it, as America is changing. Get used to the browning. You can't stop such changes from happening as a country evolves, so take your complaints about people who don't assimilate (learn English, respect women's rights, etc) and stuff it. Adapt or die. The USA should embrace change.

On the other hand, liberals argue that historically the USA is a "country of immigrants." It is contrary to the fundamental nature of the USA to refuse to accept as many immigrants as possible, from wherever, whether legally or not. This is an immutable feature of America that must forever be respected. What, are you un-American if you support any form of an immigration ban? The USA must remain unchanged, at least in the particular aspects that I, the steadfast liberal of superior ethics and education, wish it to remain unchanged. These other changes you complain about, well, those are different....because I happen to embrace them.
Julia Sutherland (Canada)
Just how many of your illegal US immigrants shall we expect in time for dinner?
Steven Roth (New York)
This case is extremely important mostly for one reason. The Supreme Court needs to decide the limits of executive power on the question of who can enter this country.

In contrast to so many writing in, I will not opine on the answer to that question - even though I have been practicing law since 1990.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will enlighten us.
JMM (Dallas)
It is about time we have some stipulations on who can enter. I can tell you if a US citizen applies for a working Visa in Germany, the UK or the Czech Republic, that person will have to provide proof that they can support themselves, show proof of a job contract or admission to a school plus proof of a rental lease of where they will live. In addition to these requirements that individual has to provide transcripts, bank account, birth certificate, marriage license, etc. We have been ridiculously foolish in this country.
SevenEagles (West)
It was going to be a temporary, six month ban to give the Feds time to improve vetting, right? If so, it's been six months, so they should be finished with the improvements, ergo, the ban is longer needed.
areader (us)
From the ruling, Judge Thomas (page 16) :
"And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now - UNANIMOUSLY - found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected."
Leon Barber (Spain)
Think this is a good move, at least it says the Supreme Court recognizes the shortcomings of the lower courts. This is only temporary and we need the time to better look at this. Of course I realize the liberals, socialist, and progressives will not go along with this, but they never go along with anything except their programs.
A Knapp (Stony Brook, NY)
In other words the Court is restoring the ban for 90 days, but ONLY for people from those six countries for whom the ban will not do irreparable harm. (The ban remains in effect in the case of refugees.) The decision simply trims the injunction to make it conform to the usual conditions for an injunction. That is not a big deal. Once the lower court hears the case, then the question becomes whether the intention is religious discrimination.
Len (Dutchess County)
Let us see if basic common sense prevails, finally.
Dean (Sacramento)
The Supreme Court is going to uphold the Travel Ban. The issue here is Executive Power.
Our Elected leadership in Congress is sidestepping the real Immigration issues. Those are, a path to citizenship, and a real explanation of what the vetting process is. The idea that people who have lived in this country for years and now can be deported is criminal. Most are productive members of society so how is it that an apparatus hasn't been set up by either political party to make it simple enough for them to become US citizens?
Donald Trump made campaign promises. So why not go around his blustering and create a path to citizenship that defangs his travel ban while continuing to challenge the law on immigrants from the middle east in the courts.
Intisar (Hartford, CT)
It seems in the name of security and safety the Govt. can now do anything. This will have ramifications down the road, and the 'liberal democratic' stock of this nation has and continues to lose value. The sheer joy on social media coming from some of the most anti-Immigrant, anti-Social Justice, anti-Environment, & essentially the most anti-Liberal people speaks volumes on the path the Western world is going.
Daniel Kinske (West Hollywood)
We need to ban the Trumps.
Robin (Annapolis)
Thank you West Hollywood. Stellar logic.
jason (Texas)
finally, with a true constitutionalist on the court Trump will get this win easy.
Steve P. (Budd Lake, NJ)
The vote was 9-0 in favor of the Trump Administration. That information belongs in the story subhead, yet you don't even include it in the body text. Somebody at the NYTimes is triggered.
Another Consideration (Gerogia)
A Muslim ban, is a Muslim ban... This is not my country!
Robin (Annapolis)
Indonesia is by far the largest Muslim country. Not on the list. I rest my case.
Robin (Annapolis)
You guys gotta stop believing everything the Clinton machine tells you to believe.
angel98 (nyc)
It's what Trump called it when he asked Guiliani to fix it for him. Watch the interview on Fox. Here's the transcript

"Giuliani revealed the stark details in an interview on Fox New ... and that’s when Giuliani explained:

OK. I’ll tell you the whole history of it. So when he first announced it he said, “Muslim ban.” He called me up and said, “Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.”
on-line reader (Canada)

I've heard several stories of Canadian citizens being turned away at the U.S. border and told, "You need to apply for a visa."

I also heard of several people in a ski club I belong to cancelling a ski trip to the U.S. because they weren't certain they would be able to get into the country (the tour operator and airline fully refunded their money).

Can't wait to hear the cries of alarm next year as U.S. tourist destinations start complaining about the drop in "overseas" (and also Canadian and Mexican) visits. That's what happens when your border people start giving people a hard time using unpredictable rules and criteria.
kramartini (TX)
The Supreme Court unanimously decided the real issue here, which is not the propriety of Trump's travel ban, but rather the propriety of the lower courts' global injunctions.

The lower courts clearly over-reached by citing a (possible) exception to the general rule that the Federal government can exclude any alien for any reason whatsoever and then using that (possible) exception to enjoin exclusion of people to whom is could not possibly apply.

This is a major victory for the Presidency (not merely this President) and a defeat for interest groups trying to bootstrap standing by invoking exceptions in an attempt to swallow the rule.
coach_les (<br/>)
Is there a need for the Supreme Court anymore? I doubt there is more 1 in 10 opinions that your reporters could not predict accurately. Why waste the money on a partisan group of judges?
Kimbo (NJ)
If it is for 90 days, and not permanent, why does the press keep calling it a ban?
Patrician (New York)
So, Gorsuch is performing as advertised??

What a surprise.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
Good for him. Hope he's a rubber stamp for PRESIDENT TRUMP!
Here (There)
He is certainly showing more open-mindedness than Sotomayor. Did you hear of the way she got into a hissy fit reading her dissent? Didn't even say "I respectfully dissent" like tradition says you do, no she just said "I dissent'. If she is going to be into "resist", I got a better person to impeach than Trump.
Patrician (New York)
Hahahaha! Thank you for the laughs.

A Trump supporter complaining about language, respect for a contrary position and attitude? Now, I've seen it all...
Haber Crustipants (Fly-Over-Country)
Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez, "Donald Trump's Muslim ban is an unconstitutional and un-American assault on our country's foundation of religious freedom. As a nation, our diversity is our greatest strength, and we cannot allow such prejudice to shut the doors of progress. Democrats will continue to fight this hatred every step of the way."
Tom: I (and a bunch of other people) do not believe what you believe, treat others that believe differently horribly, have been known to kill others who do not act the way I think they should, and have vowed to kill anyone who's name begins and ends with consonants. I/we want to move right next door to you and your family. Don't be a bigot and prejudiced. Don't shut the door of progress. In fact, this radical difference should be called diversity and be welcomed to your neighborhood as the greatest of strength. You probably know that I may really hurt your friends, your family, or you. But don't hate Tom. Don't hate.
DecliningSociety (Baltimore)
Travel to this country is a privilege not a right. Just look what is happening in Europe. You want that here? I hope the Democrats continue to act like petulant children, it will make delivering the knock out blow to the insane progressive vision of the globalist, Barrack Obama, all more likely.
angel98 (nyc)
The terror acts in Europe were committed by citizens of European countries not people traveling through.
I don't see Trump addressing domestic terrorism here, which is a far greater threat.
RBC (New York City)
You obviously missed the part when Obama implemented a similar ban in 2011. In fact, the Trump administration argued that the 6 countries listed in the travel ban were named by the Obama administration. So please, its time to end the irrational Obama hatred.
J Stuart (New York, NY)
Let' get this straight: Trump's executive order called for a limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The purpose according to the order was to to enable the government to implement stronger vetting procedures.

Even without the travel ban, they should have already finished evaluating and implementing stronger vetting procedures and accomplished Trump's goal. However implementing stronger procedures is most likely not the goal, banning is muslims is the real goal.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
I hope that's the goal.
Charles (USA)
They would have finished evaluating and implementing stronger vetting procedures is the Hawaii District Court in staying the travel ban had not also stopped the review of vetting procedures. It wasn't until June 12 that the Ninth circuit court of appeals allowed the vetting review to proceed. The Supreme Court has affirmed that it is permissible for vetting review to proceed. Of course now that it is taking place the whole purpose for the travel ban may be moot by the time the SC hears the underlying case in October.
Chris (Charlotte)
I believe they were barred from doing so - if they did it would have been contempt. However, they are now allowed to and the 90 day period will run before the court ever hears the case.
Jack Daniels (Atlanta Ga)
Obama and Democrats blocked immigration but the left didn't care, now they try and stop President Trump from utilizing the same constitutional power. Liberals are disgusting, you can't even admit that you're so blatantly political that you end up with these hypocritical actions.
Luis Mendoza (San Francisco Bay Area)
If you mistakenly believe that the United States is a functioning democracy that respects the rule of law, applied equally to all without prejudice or bias, then all the recent developments will make you feel confused and disoriented (and perhaps, extremely angry), as you grapple with the some sort of cognitive dissonance.

If you know that the U.S. is (and has been for generations) a totalitarian state (see the work of American political theorist and writer Sheldon Wolin), functioning as an oligarchy (and masquerading as a democracy), then this all makes perfect sense.
Robert S. (Texas)
If the President had never made such senseless remarks about a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and then instituted this policy, this wouldn't be in Court, this article wouldn't exist and conservatives wouldn't bother bringing up the fact that Obama instituted a similar temporary travel ban against Iraq.

In practice this is not a Muslim ban. It is a contradiction of Trump's campaign rhetoric. It's a Muslim ban like how tangerines are washing machines.

RE the Fourth Circuit's ruling, if there is anyone who thinks that the style of campaign rhetoric should dictate the legality of substantive policy - especially when it contradicts such rhetoric - then we are setting a profoundly dangerous precedent that will serve Democrats and Republicans very poorly. There is precedent for the Court to consider intent when the law is ambiguous, but it would be unprecedented for the Court to consider the intent of a politician running for office to rule on the legality of policy. Ultimately, I don't think Court will rule against for this reason.

I'd be more concerned with the expanse of executive power which rather surprisingly the Ninth Circuit used to rule against the ban. If SCOTUS decides that this travel ban should be struck down, it should be on the grounds that such a ban without congressional approval is an unconstitutional act of executive overreach, thus preventing further presidents from instituting similar executive travel bans in the future.
Robin (Annapolis)
If the court thought it would rule against, it wouldn't have issued this today. It's clear the courts only concern is ambiguity in the order creating potential problems. Over reach: No. The executive branch executes, it acts, as in now. Not later, when congress can make a law. Thus is exactly why the high court ruled today as soon as it could. The president acts. Congress enacts.
Darius (Washington D C, USA)
"I want people who can love the United States",
people who would love Russia more than the United States, then should be excluded from entering the country, and if they are born here, perhaps they shouldn't become President.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
And if they surrender their nationality to go live in Indonesia they shouldn't be allowed to run for pres. either.. oh wait..
Robin (Annapolis)
So which country do you love more than the. USA? Because, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States.
itsmildeyes (Philadelphia)
"Farook was a U.S.-born citizen of Pakistani descent, who worked as a health department employee. Malik was a Pakistani-born lawful permanent resident of the United States."

Quote from an article about the 2015 San Bernardino attack. The missus had the "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” the Supreme Court is referencing.

Demonstrably, the prerequisite relationship doesn't guarantee someone won't act maliciously. Likewise, being a citizen doesn't necessarily make one Dudley Do-Right.

What else can we do, in addition to setting a good example, to discourage people from acting like homicidal maniacs?

First suggestion: I think it’s beyond time for normal religious officials and practitioners to say, ‘No more. You don’t speak for God; you don’t speak for us. If you pull this crazy stuff, whether for Jesus Christ or Allah, you’re locked out of Heaven. No sitting at the right hand of God; no double-digit virgins. We pull your membership card.’ They need to be clear and precise and mean it.

Next: OK, I’ll bring it up; how about the gun thing? I admit I don’t know how to put that genie back in the bottle. And I know you can do a lot of damage with a rolling pin or a frying pan; but, seriously, is it necessary for everybody to have unfettered access to what are essentially military weapons? I can’t even buy decent strength hair coloring because I don’t have a beautician’s license and it’s too dangerous for an untrained person to handle.

Any more?
bradd graves (Denver, CO)
It's abundantly clear that most Times readers have no respect for the law. The decision was unanimous. The only overreach was by leftist judges who obviously should have known better.
Fabien Philippe (New York)
It sas in March and only for 90 days. More than 3 months later, has the Gvt address the gaps in its screening and vetting procedures...?
Louis Anthes (Long Beach, CA)
Unfortunately, I do agree with Alan Dershowitz on this one issue: though I oppose the policy, the President of the United States does have Executive Authority under the Constitution to restrict travel to and from countries, and to do so regardless of the racial and religious discriminatory effects.
I would add: the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to reverse precedent and to place First Amendment restrictions on the president's executive authority in this area.
I would also add: putting First Amendment restrictions on the federal immigration powers would create universal first amendment rights to all aliens seeking entry to the US.
I have been consistently ridiculed, attacked and mocked for my beliefs.
And now the Supreme Court has taken action which at least does not reject them.
Sam (Canada)
I still don't get it how this law will make America safer.

1. Everyone coming to the US from the six countries gets vetted already.
2. None of the major countries supporting extremism such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan are on the list.

Anyway, I wouldn't call this law muslim ban as much as Trump fans want to enjoy calling it.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
"Everyone coming to the US from the six countries gets vetted already."
No they don't.. get real.. some of those countries barely have a functioning government.
RBC (New York City)
There have always been issues with the vetting done by other countries (Somalia is a great example) but the US did its own vetting. Most of the people issued visas from those countries waiting at least 2 years before getting one. So vetting is going on.
TrumpThumper (Rhode Island)
This ban like the full band will do nothing to keep us safe. Its a good show like everything else Trump does..
Steve (Idaho)
Since according to Trump's own words the courts are entirely political I await his tweet denouncing this political decision by the court. Obviously I won't be hold my breath.
wildwest (Philadelphia)
Today, in a country founded on the ideal of religious liberty, the Supreme Court ruled it was permissible to ban people from entry on the basis of their religion. This is being normalized as OK because it is "much less severe than the original travel ban." Don't forget that from the beginning we have know this was specifically a "Muslim Ban." Trump and Giuliani explicitly told us it was in so many words. Incrementally and by degrees we are becoming an America I no longer recognize or want any part of.
William Case (Texas)
In December 2015, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. But in his fighting terrorism speech on August 15, 2016, Trump dropped his call for a Muslim ban. Instead, he said, “clearly, new screening procedures are needed.” His temporary travel ban is not a total and complete shutdown of Muslim entering the United States; it a temporary ban on travel from six countries until new screening procedures can be put in place. It affects the small percent of residents from six predominately Muslim countries who might have traveled to the United States during the 90 days the travel ban will be in effect. It applies to all residents of these countries, not just Muslims. The residents of these six countries will still be predominately Muslim when the ban is lifted after three months.
wildwest (Philadelphia)
@William Case

No Trump just uttered a bunch of contradictory positions to confuse the issue and throw us off the scent like he always does. Giuliani gleefully told us Trump wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the US. He seemed so proud that Trump asked him how he could make that happen legally. Nothing much has changed since then except the ban keeps getting shot down so Trump had to reduce the scope of his "vision". If I had a nickel for every time Trump spewed forth contradictory positions on an issue I could fill Fort Knox with nickels but the Muslim Ban is still a Muslim Ban even if it now looks like Muslim Ban Lite.
Bluebyyou (Tucson)
I hope my friends who voted for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are laying low today.
masayaNYC (Brooklyn)
"Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented from part of the court’s opinion. They said they would have revived the travel ban in its entirety while the court considered the case."

Well, that mystery's solved: We obviously know where Gorsuch stands on this. The Donald must be so gratified.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
All logical people are thankful. Liberals on the other hand..
EFM (Brooklyn, NY)
Logical people did not vote for Trump and his cohorts. Paranoid people on the other hand...
thinkLikeMe (USA)
{{“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” Mr. Trump said.}}

This should be the criterion for banning entry into the country: To be banned, the government must provide concrete evidence that an individual is an immanent threat to harm American citizens, not where they're coming from or what religion they observe.
Sheldon Bunin (Jackson Neights, NY)
The first question is the legitimacy of a court which contains a Justice which holds his seat solely by reason of the Republican Senate’s absolute refusal to do what the Constitution clearly required it to do. They stole a sear from Obama for Trump to fill and the illegitimacy of the jurist occupying that seat. This is important because as we have already seen that five judges serving for life, responsible to no one, can amend our Constitution at will and can only be overruled by a constitutional amendment. They could not tell the difference between unlimited secret cash and free speech.

Yet there is a larger picture. The Court must be independent and non-political and this Court is highly politicized. As it has already demonstrated, the Roberts Court does not need to follow established law, With every decision it makes new law and can remove the legal foundation of the administrative state which is on Trump’s agenda. When I hear that a matter, affirmed by several circuit courts of appeal is going to the Supreme Court I fear for my country and our democracy which is under furious attack by the two other Republican controlled branches of government, which are owned, lock, stock and barrel by a combination of plutocrats and kleptocrats who are intent on destruction of democracy.

The majority of the public believe that the Constitution is written in stone. The Trumpocrats believe it written on toilet paper. The Court will give us the answer soon enough.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
Or two judges that owe allegiance to obama not recusing themselves or an ancient third not recusing herself due to her earlier comments.
William Case (Texas)
The ruling was 9-0, so Gorsuch's appointment made no difference.

Presidents don't get to appoint Supreme Court nominees without Senate consent. The Constitution doesn't require the Senate to vote on Supreme Court nominees within a specified time frame. If it had voted, it would have rejected President Obama's nominee.
Ben (Minneapolis)
The Supreme Court has brought back the balance to the division of power. There is a delicate balance of power between the Executive, the Legislature and the Courts. The federal courts were usurping the power of the Executive and starting a very dangerous trend. Using Trump's election time quotes to invalidate an executive order was really surprising. I get it we do not discriminate against anyone based on religion. It was never about religion. If it was, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and even India would be on the list. Largest number of Muslims in the world are in Indonesia, and India is next. President Trump's executive order was that he wanted to restrict immigration temporarily from some countries which were at risk of exporting terrorists and where the US posts were unable to independently verify the Bona Fides of the travelers. In the explanation the Judges have stated a student admitted to a US University has a bona fide relationship. A friend or relative visiting a US resident has a bona fide relationship. It is a balanced decision from the Supreme court.
Dom R. (Canada)
What strikes me is that three justices have already decided how they will vote, without (formally) hearing the arguments. What would the reaction be if a judge announced that he was going to find a defendant guilty before the murder trial had even started? Is that what "prejudicial" means?
kramartini (TX)
The Supreme Court routinely issues opinions based solely on briefs without oral arguments. move along...nothing to see here...
William Case (Texas)
The ruling was 9-0. None of the justices announced their decision before hand.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
You are, of course, referring to kagan, sotomayor and ginsburg...?
Ben Luk (Australia)
All decent Americans must cry for their country.
John Brown (Idaho)
A few questions:

a) Does the United States have a right to decide who may immigrate,
visit America or not ?

b) If so, who has the final say ? Congress, the President or the Courts ?

c) Why did "Lower" Federal Courts disagree with the Supreme Court or did
they lack the power to "parse" their ruling as the Supreme Court did ?

d) What is to stop President Trump from considering this an issue of
National Security and thus declaring "Martial Law" at all points of
International Entry and stopping anyone Immigrant he wants from entering
the country ?

Did not Lincoln do something similar during the Civil War ?

Answers please.
Fred (Bryn Mawr)
A) yes; B) see Justice Jackson's famous opinion in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube re the interplay between executive and congressional power in national security cases; C) SCOTUS gets the final say on what the law is, but individual cases will play out hereafter in district courts and circuit courts; D) No, Lincoln did many things during the civil war, but his primary focus was not on immigration. SCOTUS did not today authorize martial law.
William Case (Texas)
Congress sets immigration ceilings. However, it has empowered presidents suspend travel or immigration as they see fit. U.S. Code § 1182 (Inadmissible Aliens) states: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
John Brown (Idaho)
Hi Fred,

Thank you for your detailed response.

What I meant is that Lincoln declared Martial Law and though
the Courts ruled against him, Lincoln ignored their rulings
in order to preserve the Union as he thought he should.
Wilbur Clark (Canada)
What seems to be missing in all of this is the the implicit rejection by the Supreme Court of the rationales used by the lower courts to justify opposing the ban: Trump's campaign statements.
Phil Dauber (Alameda CA)
Not necessarily. The Court did not rule on the merits. They could still use the campaign statements to invalidate the ban.
William Case (Texas)
The ruling was 9-0. The Supreme Court obviously disagreed with lower courts that the 90-travel restriction was a religious ban or that Trump had exceeded his presidential powers. Besides, the Fourth Circuit court erred by considering the wrong Trump campaigns statements. In December 2015, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. But in his fighting terrorism speech on August 15, 2016, Trump dropped the total and complete shutdown proposal. Instead, her said, “clearly, new screening procedures are needed.” His temporary travel ban is not a total and complete shutdown of Muslim entering the United States; it a temporary ban on travel from six countries until new screening procedures can be put in place.
RS (Philly)
And, in the interim, the Trump administration will decide who has a bona fide claim.
A total win for Trump.
Loyd W (Seattle)
Those who claim that decision was 9-0 misunderstand the tem "per curiam," it just means the opinion of the court unsigned. Remember Bush v. Gore was per curiam too. All we know is that were at least 5 votes for the decision to partially lift the injuncton. Those justices who disagreed with the decision are under no obligation to write a dissent. I suspect the per curiam decision was Roberts way of trying to lesson the political impact of the decision prior to hearing the case on the merits.
William Case (Texas)
The vote was 9-0. This means the justices agreed that the administration will probably win the case based on merit. Three conservative justices wrote concurrence in which they stated they thought the travel ban should be revived in its entirety while the court considered the case.
Lisa Fremont (East 63rd St.)
Attention Justices:
SCOTUS parking lot has run out of disabled spaces. two of you must go.
Maureen (Calif)
The U.S. Currently relies upon a full, detailed, and rigorous system of vetting. To date, this had served us well. There are groups that may be very unfairly targeted with reference to individuals who have assisted the U.S. For example translators.Seems there are many unknowns which need full review in 90 days.
will smith (harry1958)
Well it looks like there is no longer a separation of power between the executive and judicial branches. Therefore, the US will soon be able to drop "democracy" as their namesake and replace it with "authoritarianism".
Kalkat (Venice, CA)
No friendly tourists from the listed nations?
Hmm, so now we're busy recruiting home-grown terrorists, which was already our biggest problem . . .
Martin King (The Woodlands, TX)
Mr. Mitch McConnell is at work! Talk about draining the swamp - the likes of him and Paul Ryan!
Here (There)
God, such language from the left in these (moderated) comments! I hope the Secret Service and those who protect our congressmen and the Supreme Court justices are keeping an eye on things ... Thank God Congressman Scalice is doing better ...
JKR (New York)
I agree -- though I think the language is there in right-leaning comments too. It seems like even Trump's biggest opponents have adopted his rhetorical style, along with everybody else. Maybe his most effective act as President! It's a real shame for political discourse and doesn't bode well for our democracy.
cjger31 (Lombard IL)
It would seem the argument that this Executive Order is effectively a ban on Muslims has been dismissed. Otherwise there is no reason to stay enforcement of the travel ban. Trump's campaign promise to ban Muslims has been fulfilled. A clear victory for President Trump no matter what SCOTUS ultimately decides.

This is plainly an unconstitutional act because it had been verified by Rudy Giuliani that this religious ban could be disguised as a ban on immigrants from certain countries. The Justices seem to be ignoring public pronouncements during the campaign.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
Seeing that 96% of Muslims live in countries that aren't affected by the 120 day suspension it's petty hard to view this as a religious ban. And especially since it's not a ban but a suspension with a time limit.

Logic much?
Ben (Minneapolis)
The country with the largest population of Muslims is Indonesia. The second largest Muslim population is India. None of these countries are covered by the ban. US consular offices are able to determine the risk and the governments in those countries including Saudi Arabia are cooperating with the US. Thus the ban is not a ban on Muslims.
Bluebyyou (Tucson)
I think Trump's name is on Hotels in those countries.
Nate Grey (Pittsburgh)
Deporting Mr. Trump might keep American safe again.
Dieter Aichernig (Austria)
But please not Europe !
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
We deported him right into the White House.. where he will live for the next 7 3/4 years... enjoy! Oh yes.. Thank You Pittsburgh for helping elect PRESIDENT TRUMP!!
A parishioner (PA)
I live in Pittsburgh and I LOVE President Trump! MAGA!!!
Lisa Fremont (East 63rd St.)
Great optic. Ginsburg leans heavily left. What a surprise!
John Figliozzi (Halfmoon, NY)
It depends on perspective, I suppose. She is leaning to your right.
RBC (New York City)
Well she couldn't have leaned to far left as the SCOTUS vote to partially reinstate the travel ban was 9-0. That means all the "lefties" voted for it.
A parishioner (PA)
Regardless of whether time runs out on the travel ban review period of 90 days, It IS important to establish, once and for all, without ambiguity if President Trump is correct in his assertion that he has the Constitutional authority to ban immigration from any country, group or region if in his SOLE discretion, he believes that ban is necessary for the protection of the US. This is important to establish for future presidents because in some future cases such travel bans may have a critical time component to them and cannot wait months to be litigated. For example, what if a future president had to forbid incoming travel from some region of the globe where a deadly highly transmissible disease was spreading rapidly?
Also it IS crucial to establish, once and for all, if the courts must rule on a presidential order based SOLELY on what is written in it, or whether they can use tweets, campaign statements, tv interviews and other data not included in the official order to determine if the order is constitutional or not.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
Regardless of whether time runs out on the travel ban review period of 90 days, It IS important to establish, once and for all, without ambiguity if President Trump is correct in his assertion that he has the Constitutional authority to ban immigration from any country, group or region if in his SOLE discretion, he believes that ban is necessary for the protection of the US


Well that's exactly what it says in 8 USC 1182
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
"some region of the globe where a deadly highly transmissible disease was spreading rapidly?" Obama already brought Ebola to the USA..
Mike (Urbana, Illinois)
Interesting that Judge Thomas finds addressing claims of bureaucratic violations of basic human rights to be "burdensome."

My mom always said, if it's too hot, then get out of the kitchen. Judge Thomas could always retire and enjoy his nice, fat pension and would no longer have to deal with the burdens of the judiciary.

And why, pray tell, is there never such a complaint when it's in reference to the rights of corporations? Guess they are never burdensome? Or is no burden too heavy when discussing corporate rights?
JeepGirl (Horseheads, NY)
The president called this a Muslim ban on more than one occasion, utilizing more than one medium -- news interviews, social media, etc. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, in his words it is a fake duck. But there is no question this is, and always as been, a ban on Muslims from countries where he has no business. In fact the one country most notably not on the list, Saudi Arabia, is the country that the 9/11 attackers hailed from. It is a sham and totally against the basic tenets of our country. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Addendum; except if they are Muslim form countries Trump doesn't do business with...
Campesino (Denver, CO)
The president called this a Muslim ban on more than one occasion


Except that it doesn't apply to 96% of Muslims
Elise (Northern California)
Let us all note and remember that Trump has never once proposed limiting the number of folks from Russian, the Ukraine, Slovenia (home of Melania) from coming in, much less all the women who come to this country as "models" and are actually Russian "brides."

Perhaps the NYT could also get the factual, documented records from the Dept. of Justice, FBI, etc. of the violent, brutal crimes committed by the Russian Mafia, which I remember years ago an FBI agent saying was the most dangerous criminal enterprise in America.

But you can bet Trump would never stop Russian "models" from coming here. Or the Chinese coming in because they're rich and want their kids born here. Or any of the other "civilized" countries whose citizens abuse our system. Who are they?

And why does no one in the media provide the list of exactly who >is< allowed into the country every year, and why.
SuperNaut (The Wezt)
Typical Nirvana Fallacy pseudo-criticism: If it doesn't fix everything then it isn't valid.
John Figliozzi (Halfmoon, NY)
Watching what the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President have been doing leaves me with the sinking feeling that we are losing both our country and it's expressed principles, in the process conceding both to a narrow-minded self-centered minority constituency that has subverted our democratic processes while it is subverting our Constitution. To coin a phrase, "Sad!"
John (Brooklyn)
Currently, Trump and Co. are looking into pushing regime change in Iran while saying Iranians are not welcomed into the United States.

The only way America can and should assist in bringing about a more open Iran is to open the United States to Iranians. Welcome Iranian students to our schools and Universities, and let them return to Iran with the lessons of the United States. In other words, let democracy grow organically.

Instead, we close our doors to them and undermine their institutions. We make it so any organic resistance in Iran can be labeled "agents of America" and lose all credibility.

We are doing a disservice to everyone that yearns for freedom. This is not how to spread democracy. This is not how to make the world safer.
Danielle Davidson (Canada and USA)
Finally a decision that makes sense. The Highest Court cannot deny the authority of the President regarding immigration.
Stephen (Texas)
While I suppose this is somewhat of a victory, prior terror attacks in Europe would seem to suggest that persons with "ties to the US" should be the ones we should be concerned with, as those attacks are often carried out by 2nd generation citizens who travel to the Middle East and become radicalized.
Mark (California)
We need to end all travel from all mid-east countries, and to end all immigration for 50 years. It is time to get our house in order.
M (Seattle)
Another win against progressives. Works for me.
sbmd (florida)
Half a win is better than no win at all. Half a loss is better than a total loss. Aren't we all so tired of winning?
And all those terrorist attacks that have occurred without the full ban...
Think (Wisconsin)
"The court granted part of that request in its unsigned opinion.
The justices, in effect, said that foreigners with ties or relationships in the United States would not be prohibited from entering the country. But, those applying for visas who had never been here, or had no family, business or other ties could be prohibited."

Well, talk about 'Legislating from the Bench' (that conservatives routinely decry)! I suppose now it is not so bad?
Fred (Bryn Mawr)
Courts have always had the authority to fashion school of equitable relief. It applies to specific cases and controversies and does not set forms, by itself, the Law.
American Citizen (Florida)
I'm surprised that the Supreme court agreed to hear this case, given there was no contradictory decisions among the lower courts. I'm no legal scholar, but that was my understanding of the role of the Supreme court - to settle disputes among the lower courts.
Martin King (The Woodlands, TX)
Give credit to Mitch McConnell! I am het to come across a person who I detest more.
Drs (New York)
No, not always. It may also want to clarify a legal principle of great importance.
Fred (Bryn Mawr)
SCOTUS jurisdiction, although largely set by congress except for those cases specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is not limited to resolving circuit splits. The Court will on occasion, take up what it and the executive consider important issues of federal law. But you are largely correct, the Court generally likes to let the law develop in the circuits before jumping in. For its part, congress can deprive the Court of jurisdiction over all cases except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Meg Ulmes (Troy, Ohio)
Legal, and moral issues aside--although they are important. What will allowing this ban to go forward from now until October do to the summer tourist season? Already tourists from overseas are down--many because their countries don't feel America is as safe for travel as it once was. This ban sends a clear message about who is welcome in America and who is not. How are businesses that depend on tourism for their livelihood going to feel when tourism numbers continue to go down. As an American, I'm sure not motivated to travel around my own country right now. Money talks. The tourist businesses losing money and perhaps even closing may end up having the last word here.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
Legal, and moral issues aside--although they are important. What will allowing this ban to go forward from now until October do to the summer tourist season?


How many "tourists" do you think we really get from Somalia, Sudan and Yemen?
NYCLAW (Flushing, New York)
The latest SCOTUS' decision to partially lift the stay on Trump's travel ban is not good news for its opponents. There are already three justices who believe that Trump's travel ban is constitutional. Roberts is more than likely to feel the same way. Kennedy, by himself, will determine whether Trump's travel ban is constitutional. The issue boils down to whether a president can exercise control over the borders even if such control is motivated by religious discrimination.
Dan (Philadelphia)
And given our CONSTITUTION the answer to that question should be an easy NO.
Zatari (Anywhere)
I've been an attorney for nearly forty years. I know where this case is going. Rarely is a decision such as this one handed down, unless the court will ultimately rule on behalf of the Appellant (here, the Trump administration) on the merits. In fact, at this point, I would be shocked if the court rules otherwise.

Recall that the Korematsu decision upheld the government's right to intern tens of thousand of American citizens of Japanese descent - nearly three-quarters of them native born. We have been here before.

If one more incident such as the San Bernardino shootings takes place (carried out, by the way, by people from countries other than those on the ban), this president will have no problem using this as a pretext to begin systematically rounding up tens of thousands of Americans of Middle Eastern ancestry. He knows he would pay absolutely no price to do so -- and indeed, given the bigotry of his supporters, would no doubt seal his re-election.

I would be thrilled to be proven wrong. But so far, every action of this administration says otherwise.
mjb (Tucson)
Terrible article. what are the six countries? Does this mean that refugee resettlement is suspended for 120 days?
Please iterate and reiterate...with all these various rulings, I cannot tell where we are, and NYTimes writers need to make it clear exactly what will happen before October.
Andrew (Washington DC)
Gorsuch is certainly proving to have an incredibly rigid view of the law, as predicted by many of the Democratic Senators that he stonewalled..... he appears to be turning into the nightmare we hoped he wouldn't be
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
Good for him!!
Gregg (NYC)
This was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. The law should not be political. Blaming Gorsuch is incoherent.
WeHadAllBetterPayAttentionNow (Southwest)
The Trump administration is not going to do any "internal reviews". They are simply going to claim a win.
CJT (Providence RI)
This was not a "unanimous" decision, people, please. For those who don't understand how the American government works, this was a per curiam opinion. That means that the result is the will of the court's majority, as ruled in a private vote. There is no tally saying who voted how here. It seems very likely that there were votes against, but that's not part of the official record. End of story.

Stop exaggerating your claims. Read more, understand your government.
XLER (West Palm)
Islamic terrorists are blowing up people all over Europe (think London and Paris) and leftists want to lecture us about blocking immigrants from Islamist countries who can't be vetted. This is about as compelling an issue as the transgender bathroom belly flop was with American voters. Trump may be rough around the edges, but he knows what resonates and actually cares about US safety. Democrats can just keep losing for all I care.
Dan (Philadelphia)
If he cares about US safety, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list?

Oh yes, his business ties. Tell me again who he cares about?
Darius (Washington D C, USA)
yeap he cares about US safety as much as he cares about anything else besides himself, his money and his immediate family.
and with useful idiots who buy into his shenanigans he will continue to cut "great deals for himself" long into future.
Anne-Marie Hislop (Chicago)
Here's guessing that the administration will not complete its reviews over the summer just as it has done nothing for the past 5 months. Trump & Co., want to ban Muslims and certain others. They will not get around to it maintaining that a complete shut-down is necessary in order to review. They really want to keep "those people" out.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
Here's guessing that the administration will not complete its reviews over the summer just as it has done nothing for the past 5 months.


It has done noting for the past five months because the lower courts enjoined them from working on it.
A parishioner (PA)
We can't let the technicality of the 90 or 120 day period having expired prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on what is REALLY at stake here. It is important for the Supreme Court to rule once for all if the powers of the President in regards to immigration are unreviewable. A future president may be faced with a rapidly spreading deadly disease in some part of the world and need to be able to ban travel from that region immediately, without court delays, because in such a scenario time is of the essence. IT seems to me that the people arguing to make the case moot due to the lapsed 90 or 120 days are in reality VERY WORRIED that the Supreme Court will ultimately side with the president.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
Maybe if obstructionist democrats weren't busy being the party of no and planning protests and riots, something COULD get done.
Bill (Des Moines)
Looks like 9-0 Trump victory if I read the article correctly.
mancuroc (rochester)
The handful of Muslims who committed acts of terrorism had ties to the United states. And, by the way, so do the people from the right who commit hate crimes.
JChess (Texas)
AND from the left!
Bluebyyou (Tucson)
It's 10 to 1 . No comparison.
Ed (VA)
The notion that some judge in Hawaii can put the rest of us at risk because of some pie in the sky belief in diversity is abhorrent. I'm glad the justices are beginning to get it right. Hopefully they'll allow the ban to go through as written next term.
Elise (Northern California)
"...some judge in Hawaii".... But, apparently, all the judges in, say, Alabama or Texas or Mississippi are just fine with you?

And what, exactly, is the risk of which you speak? Being killed by a white Christian terrorist? The gun-loving child of an executive at General Motors? The innumerable fools in the country who solve any problem by firing a gun at anyone? Those risks?
will smith (harry1958)
But your talking about the lying, corrupt nincompoop Trump. I would gladly give any judge the congressional medal of honor who votes against the travel ban.
nogard (California)
For just one minute, forget your mindless opposition to Trump and consider that the law and Constitution very clearly and unambiguously gives ANY president the power to decide that any group or category of people may be considered a danger and threat to the country and it's citizens, and that that president is given the power to ban such people from entering the country. It is not only within his power but is his responsibility to do so as he sees fit. The truth is that the supreme Court will not be deciding on whether or not Trump's ban is constitutional since the president is clearly given that power, but whether they have the integrity and honesty to rule on the law and not upon their own political and personal whims, beliefs or personal opposition to this president. Any judge voting against this ban should rightly be impeached by the congress and removed from the bench for gross misconduct and dereliction of duty
JKR (New York)
But that just begs the question: Does the Constitution clearly and unambiguously give any President power so sweeping, even when the ban itself on its face appears to violate the 1st Amendment? And, in this particular case, was the decision itself a legitimate exercise of that power, or are the references to security just a pretext for an act of hatred and intolerance?

These are the questions the courts have been grappling with. I actually think this case is much harder than anybody on either side is acknowledging. But it is not enough simply to say "the President has powers over immigration" without grappling with these tougher questions.
Steve (Wayne, PA)
As I forgo my mindless opposition to Trump, I am reminded of the interment of Japanese during World War 2 that was also a test of a President's power to restrict immigration. The ruling was that there does need to be evidence of a threat in order to take this kind of action. Clearly in the current case there was (and is) no compelling argument to be made that people coming from the banned countries pose any kind of threat. Too, the President's past statements do constitute evidence that the sole intention of the ban was to restrict Muslims from entering this country. Yes, there are limits on the President's power...that's why we do have an independent Judiciary.
Sharon (Chicago, IL)
The president does not have unlimited power to set US border entry policy. He's the president, not an emperor.

Trump has lost on this travel ban 6 times in well respected courts with both republican and democratic appointed judges.
Leigh (Qc)
Good! Trump's contempt for the American constitution and its defenders knows no bounds so when SCOTUS doesn't actually heel and obey and sanction his petulant notions of who should be allowed into HIS America he'll let loose the full fury of his libellous bullying rage on the highest court in the land and finally be made to discover what's eluded him thus far: that the law applies to everyone.
A parishioner (PA)
The S.C. only TEMPORARILY allowed certain people from Muslim countries with supposed bona-fide ties to people in the U.S. to continue to be admitted to the U.S.A, until they finally rule the case in October. At that time they can establish that the President DOES have the constitutional power to ban ANYONE, including the people temporarily allowed in by the S.C., from entering the U.S.
Ijahru (Providence)
The courts ruled correctly.
Lionel Broderick (Santa Monica)
Are there any history buffs that could please find 10 famous Americans that came to this country without any previous family ties? And as an alternative thought process, I believe the Italian Mafia had strong family and look what good they brought to this country.
We caused chaos and upheaval in the middle east and now convict a lot of innocent people to death. It is very similar to the new proposed Trump Care, a lot of people will die. To me, all this seems like a form of ethnic cleansing.
W.A. Spitzer (Faywood)
In their decision the court ignored the promise by Trump during the campaign that Muslims should be blocked from entering the country and the subsequent statement by Trump that the ban fulfilled a campaign promise. Basically the decision by the Supreme Court concludes is that what a person says and what they write in an executive order should be taken as completely separate and unrealted things.
Dan (New York)
Considering that the "ban" affect a small fraction of all Muslims, your statement is correct
A parishioner (PA)
And that is the correct view, because what a candidate says before becoming president, he says WITHOUT the availability of full intelligence information as to threats to the U.S. After becoming president, he has available information he did not have when he made the earlier campaign statements and tweets.
Nana (Phoenix, AZ)
I am quite amazed about the lack of understanding, even by Times reporters, of the way our visa system works, and how that is leading many to misinterpreting the court's decision to hear the case. I'm not sure if people are aware that, on a daily basis, U.S. consular officers routinely deny visas to people from countries all over.

All the court is saying is that the administration can continue to do to people from those six countries, who have no "bona fide relationship with a person or entity" in this country, what they routinely do to people from countries we have no visa arrangements with. What Trump's executive orders sought to do was summarily ban even those people (from the six countries) who have a bona fide relationship with U.S. persons and entities. Remember that those are the people who challenged the order in court. And they won. The court says Trump cannot ban them until the hear the case.
Sharon (Chicago, IL)
As someone intimately aware of how the ban has played out for travelers, nothing has really changed. SCOTUS has not indicated who would make the determination about sufficient ties, or what they are actually are. That means the Customs and Border Patrol will continue to do whatever the hell they feel like at that particular moment without any oversight.

It emboldens the worst of them.
A parishioner (PA)
But keep in mind that AFTER the S.C. hears the case they may rule in favor of President Trump. Those people may have "won" only a temporary pyrrhic victory.
Maria Ashot (EU)
Correct. Consequently, it will have a negative impact on tourism, airlines, Boeing, airport concessions -- and ultimately a knock-on effect elsewhere in the food chain.

And it will set a precedent. At a later date, there may be a ban on people who support Greenpeace, or PETA, or on people who donated to Reporters Without Borders... Other methods can be formulated to effectively filter/discourage certain categories of humanity from any number of possible wishes they might have.
W.Wolfe (Oregon)
Our Nation, based on "Liberty and Justice for All" has failed that founding, corner stone Statement.
The bigotry, the arrogance, the indifference of this Administration AND it's very stacked-deck of a Supreme Court is repulsive beyond belief.
As an American, I am 100% disgusted with the direction "our" Government is going. Can our Nation stay alive until 2020 ?? I've never missed voting in any election. May 2020 bring us some better choices.
Dan (New York)
The "all" that you quote originally applied only to white landowning men. We've done a magnificent job expanding that "liberty and justice" to all American citizens. It certainly was never meant to apply to foreigners to whom America owes nothing.
NW Gal (Seattle)
Where is the policy that addresses closing the gaps? In other words, what has the Trump administration argued to be the solution here.
If people from those specified countries are banned because they have never been here then what is the precedent for that if vetting is a 2 year process and open to applicants. I fail to understand the logic applied here.
Any terrorist wannabe who has been here before can still come in but someone with no history here cannot. How do we ascribe motives to their requests for visas?
That clearly makes me feel safer. After all, if people with ties in this country are not going for 'training' in a Muslim country then that should be easier to determine than vetting someone for the first time. It's worked so well before.
So, in all this time the administration has had to define a policy to address the specific gaps how will the new policy work. They only have till October to figure it out while Trump does his little hand victory tweets in the meantime.
David H. Eisenberg (Smithtown, NY)
Plaintiffs more than once answered that the same order issued by Obama would have been okay. People, including judges, are going to disagree on who is bigoted and if it is not the words of the laws/orders themselves that matter, but who makes them, then we have a gov't of men and not laws.

Trump, of course, makes trouble for himself, including calling this a "Muslim ban," when it is clearly not. How can it be a Muslim ban while not restricting ninety some odd % of Muslims in the world, and the order proscribes it being applied religiously? Again, what should matter are the words themselves - that's the rule of law, not men. Ironically, his critics claim the order was somehow authoritarian when what they are asking for begs for it.

If the S. Ct. affirms these lower court decisions, future presidents will also have to be hamstrung by those in opposition claiming they are bigoted or biased based on campaign or other unofficial statements. It will be a pretext for political trouble making. It's not that I thought the order was a good idea. But I do think the "resistance" - i.e., something is good or bad based upon whether Trump is for or against it - is a very bad idea and could lead to a dangerous precedent here. Not that partisans on either side seem to care about bad consequences. They just want to win.

Also, Justice Thomas was right. The temporary order was a compromise. People will try to make pseudo relationships to avoid the law. How hard is that with social media?
Nutmeg (Brookfield)
Why do they need all the extra time to review the cases? Supposedly these are the best and the brightest jurists in the country with high power staffs to boot. Surely a smart group of judges like them could hash this out in under a month. And the justice system is spoken of as unbiased and "blind", certainly they can see that the extremist reactionaries who crafted the law were indifferent to needy would be immigrants even as they were eager to please the wealthy interests in neighboring countries in the Mid-East by not stepping on their toes.
ann (Seattle)
I find it odd that Syrians seek refuge in Europe and the U.S. instead of in Mid-eastern countries that practice their own religion and have cultures that are similar to their own.

Let's consider the wealthy Mid-eastern country of Qatar. According to a 4/12/13 NYT article by Richard Morin, “Qatar’s 250,000 citizens are among the world’s richest, with a gross national income (adjusted for relative purchasing power) of $87,478 last year — about double the figure in the United States.” Qatari businesses and households bring in 1.2 million foreign workers, on a temporary basis, to work for them. Why don't Qatari nationals welcome Syrian refugees and offer them jobs in their businesses and households?

Why are none of the Syrians finding refuge in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, or Iran?
Dan (Philadelphia)
Iran is not an Arab country.
Checkpoint Charley (Georgia)
The headline is quite misleading, a thorough read of everything that came from SC today shows that President Trump and future Presidents have already won here, just a question if it will be 5-4 better.
Mladen Andrijasevic (Beer Sheva, Israel)
This is a major victory for everyone who wants to defend the US from jihadists. Thank you Founding Fathers for coming up with the US system of checks and balances. And the victory is not so partial after all. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch —offered a partial dissent that objected to the narrowing of the president’s ban “It said the ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The revised travel ban is going to be enforced.
A quote from Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, "The Challenge of Dawa", on immigration:

“The administration, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), should subject immigrants and refugees to ideological scrutiny, as happened during the Cold War.

Individuals requesting temporary entry to the United States, permanent residency, or citizenship must be asked about their commitment to Islamism and related concepts such as the death penalty for apostasy and support for sharia law and the subjugation of women. If individuals are found to have lied in their immigration or citizenship applications about their commitment to the US Constitution by engaging in subversive dawa activities after establishing residency, their residency or citizenship must be revoked."

Note; that the emphasis is on ideological scrutiny.
Maria Ashot (EU)
You mean like the USSR and the other Warsaw Pact, Kremlin-led states used to, don't you?
farverim (Brooklyn, NY)
“As president, I cannot allow (non-white, non-cis gendered, non-christian, queer) people into our country who want to do us harm,” Mr. Trump said. “I want (white, cis-gendered christian heterosexual) people who can love the United States and all of its (white, cis-gendered christian heterosexual) citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”
Joe (iowa)
And Democrats can't figure out why they are losing. Continually.
Mark (California)
That's what I want too: white heterosexual Christians who come from the same racial and cultural stock as our Founding Fathers.
A parishioner (PA)
If you disagree with him then vote him out of office. You have that right.
SuperNaut (The Wezt)
According to NYT comments, Gorsuch the FNG, was able to influence the entirety of the SCOTUS. Astounding power embodied in one man...
Campesino (Denver, CO)
Gorsuch is awesome
Elias Wandera (Kenya)
Let this be stopped
HomageToDonByas (NYC)
Trump is quoted as having said: "“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” Mr. Trump said. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

If Trump loved the United States and all of its citizens, he would immediately resign. The damage he's doing to our country and its citizens is incalculable.
Ragz (Austin, TX)
As of yesterday, the citizens of those countries deemed detrimental to US security interests had better chances of securing a green card in US than those deemed not detrimental like India. Current employment backlog for india goes to 2008 while those for Iran/Iraq/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Yemen are current. Ultimately who is more beneficial to US?

Terrorism and its ugly face have been faced by countries like India for decades thanks to Neighbors like Pakistan. Its a recent phenomenon in the west. Having come from a city like Hyderabad, where certain parts are muslim dominant, its real to me that people of those religion are non-tolerant, non-liberal, violence prone and anti-women in greater majority than rest.

Its unfortunate that the non-discrimination principle in US has to face a challenge from radical Islam. I really hope no dent is hit on the face of the principle while balancing the security threats from radical Islam.
Soroor (USA)
I am not sure exactly what you mean but it sounds like you think Indians are superior workers and that all Muslims are violent.
I think you might not have lived in the US long enough to meet people from the countries you named to find out that they are as hard working and peaceful as your fellow country men and women.
Also, looking at the history of India we don't see that Muslims have a monopoly on violence. Both Muslims and Hindus have committed unspeakable acts of violence.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
I am not sure exactly what you mean but it sounds like you think Indians are superior workers and that all Muslims are violent.


Actually 177 million Indian citizens are Muslim. I'm confused
Philly (Expat)
The President was within the law with his EO. The 9th circuit ruling was classical legislation from the bench. The US Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to immigrate to the US!!!, especially from countries hostile to the US!!! Those who advocate otherwise should see by this signal that they are mistaken. We have a President who is concerned about the security of US citizens, and sees that the Constitution is not a death pact.
Philly: Look up the concept of "standing" in an on-line legal dictionary.
Each of the Americans who won in the Circuits would have been harmed and had standing to enforce their Constitutional rights.
That is the way our Constitution and judicial system have worked for over 200 years.
Dan (Philadelphia)
We have president that cares only for himself.

Why did he not put the country that produced 19/20 911 perpetrators on the list?

Do you even wonder about that? Or is it anything Trump says is ok?
Don (USA)
We should build all the walls and implement any travel bans that are needed to protect our safety and security.

We should do whatever is necessary to prevent individuals that can't be properly vetted or attempt to come here illegally from entering our country.
Sharon (Chicago, IL)
Do you think someone from the middle east just hops on a plane and shows up at JFK?

If you are not a citizen of one of 37 countries, or were and could not obtain a visa waiver, you apply for a visa. You take all your school, employment and financial records to the embassy, have a background check and a security interview and pay a non refundable fee. If you're in a lucky minority, you get approved for a visa. You go back to the embassy and speak to someone again. You might be interviewed again. Then you get your visa and get on a plane. By now, this has taken months and may have involved 2 trips to another country. The US does not accept visa applications at all consulates, nor do we have embassies in every country.

When you get to the US, Customs personnel interview you all over again. They may cancel your visa that was so hard and expensive to get and send you home without ever entering the US.

The US government already has 3 chances to deny someone entry under the current process. I can't begin to think of what "extreme vetting" would look like.
Mr Peabody (Brooklyn, NY)
The lower courts ruling drips with inconsistency. The Justice Department should prevail for the simple fact that :
Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Indonesia and Afghanistan
ALL Muslims countries were not on the banned country list. If this was truly on religious grounds, these countries would have been included. The lower court, along with the MEDIA --- CAN NOT and WILL NOT give you an answer to that that passes the smell test.
Paul Eckert (Switzerland)
Wow! One can feel sorry for "journalists" like CNN's Acosta, Wolf & others I will not mention here,...that have been so singlemindedly anti Trump, thus doing a big disservice to their cause and professional journalism. Reporting this piece of news must feel like swallowing a roll of barbed wire.
Mr Chang Shih An (Taiwan)
It is right that any sovereign nations government should decide which non resident can be admitted. Vetting is normal. Many people provide forged documents to get visa's to go to other countries. Even having a visa does not guarantee entry it just allows and airline to take you there.
Zatari (Anywhere)
I've been an attorney for nearly forty years. I know where this case is going. Rarely does a court issue a decision such as this one unless it intends to later rule in favor of the Appellant, here, the Trump administration. In fact, I will be absolutely shocked if it does not do so.

Recall that the Korematsu decision justified the internment of tens of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry, seventy percent of whom were native-born citizens. We have been here before.

The formal ruling supporting this ban will be handed down either this year or next. Given the ban's notable absence of Saudi Arabia and other countries whose citizens have actually committed terrorist acts on our soil, we know exactly why it was issued -- to satisfy the outright bigotry of at least half this nation's citizens. Thus this nation's highest court will use its prestige to rubber stamp an executive order based on nothing but this president's supporters' hatred of brown people.

One more incident such as the shootings in San Bernardino (by the way, carried out by people from countries other than those listed on the ban) will be all this president needs to begin rounding up Americans of Middle Eastern ancestry. He would certainly do this and any other horrific acts that would cement his victory in 2020. I would love to believe I'm wrong. But so far, this administration's actions have proven otherwise.
George Xanich (Bethel, Maine)
The ruling is a full victory and confirms the president' s constitutional authority to determine immigration policy regarding domestic security. The decision was based on sound legal reasoning countering the two circuit court opinions based on politics. The executive order is not a ban but a travel moratorium; it is not a Muslim Ban as it does not restrict the Muslim world from entering the US. The court will rule in President 's Trump favor; disregard the political rethoric of Muslim bans and determine its intention: to provide an additional layer of screening from those listed nations whose screening processes is suspect. As the US is in its 16th year of war in the Middle East and fundamentalist who wish us harm , our greatest asset our liberal immigration policies should not afford opportunity to those who view it as the greatest US weakness.
SridharC (New York)
Even before the ban and even before Mr. Trump, immigration services always had and enforced enhanced vetting processes for some countries. No one talked about it but the current President used it to win votes. He did not even need an EO. Even if SCOTUS overturned the ban US embassies across the world would not change a thing.
Michael Gallagher (Cortland, NY)
And so like the Republican party, the 5-4 court goes along with Trump as he smashes everything America has come to stand for. His enablers had better be happy because they will live with the blame for the rest of their lives.
boag45 (Canada)
Maybe if the US banned all the people whose countries have been bombed by the US, that would clarify matters.
Maturin25 (South Carolina)
Charles (FL)
SCOTUS has made a easy ruling.

It told the completely bias Liberal judges who were ruling on what someone said is not what is actually the law. You must go by what is written...or I guess Trump can say anything he wants and it will be the law by the logic of these overturned Judges
George (New York)
“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” Mr. Trump said. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

Then why doesn't he self-deport? He clearly hates most of us-- BIGLY.
YogaGal (Westfield, NJ)
Oh, goodie!!! Now he can say he's had a case before the highest court in the US. The Supreme Court. No matter the outcome, you can be sure of one thing: he will claim himself a winner.
stu freeman (brooklyn)
It's a clear victory, alright- for The Donald's own prejudices and Islamophobia, as well as those of the citizens who continue to support him. No one from the six countries' on the President's list have engaged in acts of terror here in the U.S. The Saudis, who AREN'T on the list, are another story but those who provide our feckless leader with dollars and riyals are clearly of greater consequence than mothers and children fleeing from ISIS.
Brian (Minneapolis)
Vivian Vera (Quito, Ecuador)
Lilo (Michigan)
"No one from the six countries' on the President's list have engaged in acts of terror here in the U.S. "

People keep saying this for some reason but it's just not true. Abdul Artan, who attacked people with a car and knife during a terrorist attack at OSU, was a Somali born refugee.

I don't know why this has gone down the memory hole. Now if people want to argue that Trump's policy is wrongheaded for other reasons, fine but there are indeed people from the countries impacted who have attacked or tried to attack Americans in America post 9-11.
Lisa Fremont (East 63rd St.)
Activist Dem judges overturned by activist GOP judges.
the Founders are rolling in their graves. This "branch" was broken 20 years ago. and it will never be mended.
Beetle (Tennessee)
9-0 SC.
Frank (Smith)
The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous. So, it was both the activist GOP judges and the activist Dem judges agreeing, apparently.

In fairness to all of the commenters that have gotten this simple fact wrong, the NYT conveniently forgot to call out the unanimity in it's reporting, presumably because doing so would be inconsistent with their painfully obvious anti-GOP/Trump bias, and they did link to the opinion after all (knowing darn well that very few will actually do so and being content with allowing its readership to stay uninformed and make liberal leaning (but incorrect) assumptions). Paper of record indeed.
Lisa Fremont (East 63rd St.)
While I agree with your comment, the fact that it was 9-0 is not relevant to what I said. Each one of these turkeys has their own narrative ax to grind.
William Case (Texas)
The objective of the 90-day travel ban is obviously to stop terrorists, not Muslims. The residents of the six affected countries will still be predominantly Muslim when the ban is lifted in three months.
Liza (Seattle)
Then why not put Saudi Arabia on the ban since we know that's where the 9/11 attackers came from? Oh wait, they just gave us a bundle of money. Not only does this so-called executive order reek of hypocrisy, it turns a blind eye to the home-grown terrorists that have been the real problem.
Andy Clayterman (NYC)
I don't remember obama doing anything to the Saudi's other than bowing.
William Case (Texas)
The 9/11 attack happen 16 years ago. The travel ban applies to today's threat scenario. The Department of Homeland Security says terrorists screening procedures in the six countries on the list are inadequate. We can keep home-grown terrorist out. They are already here. But we can keep foreign terrorists out.
William Beeman (Minneapolis, MN)
A ridiculous ruling, and a clear sop to the White House. The 90 days specified in the ban has already passed twice. It will pass again before the SCOTUS can consider the 4th and 9th Circuit decisions. As the article point out the exception for people with ties to the US is going to be used to exempt ANY business person (especially those with ties to Trump) while banning legitimate travel to the U.S.

The most severely disadvantaged people will be foreign students matriculating in September. There needs to be an additional lawsuit immediately clarifying the status of the students. It can be argued that their acceptance at U.S. schools constitutes a tie to the US. It must be done, and immediately.
Definitely a clear sop to the White House. I blame Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan especially for residing in Trump's pocket.
BearBoy (St Paul, MN)
"A ridiculous ruling"? No, yours is a ridiculous opinion. This 9-0 decision was the only one possible given the wording of the relevant statute. It is deserving punch in the mouth of the unlawfully crazed 4th and 9th Circuits.
William Case (Texas)
But the administration has explained that the Hawaii court order was so sweeping, even the vetting work has ground to a halt. Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said, “We have complied by that injunction. We've put our pens down. We haven't done any work on it. So the 90-day period, in our view, has not been able to run at all.”
Not_Jude (Pacific Northwest)
I won't even keep banging on trying to figure out why Saudi Arabia hasn't been on this listed, but that one thing's certainly obvious or perhaps just coincidental, Gorsuch's appointment proves worthwhile and in such a short crucial time as the walls are slowing crumbling around Trump!

I am beginning to see why there a tug-of-war with holding this Admin accountable and glossing over so many questionable situations they are involved BUT never would I have expected a hasty decision from SCOTUS.

Limited part of the "Travel Ban" takes effect?! That's the decision of the highest court? We're don't dullards, it's clearly either a yes or no.
Beetle (Tennessee)
I agree Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan should all be on the list too!
Bruce11 (USA)
Is there any possibility, since this was a 9-0 decision by a very otherwise partisan court, that your view is just wrong?
Charles (FL)
I am so Proud of TRUMP. This is why i voted for him. Trump puts Americans first...not the world unless it helps us too.
Six Minutes Remaining (Out There)
Trump is putting so many Americans first, that he is willing to take health care away from them. He's willing to let corporations destroy the environment. He thinks of Americans so much, that Trump didn't even include the Arab countries with whom he does business in his travel ban. Trump proud? You've been snowed!
Clayton (Somerville, MA)
"...not the world unless it helps us too."
Is it possible that many apparently feel this is an excellent lesson to teach our children?
Vivian Vera (Quito, Ecuador)
Robin Foor (California)
Here is the test of whether the Court is really a check or a balance against executive power. Donald Trump was not elected by a majority of the people. He lost the election by 3 million votes.

Yet now he is allowed to enforce a racist, anti-Muslim travel ban, a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, even after he publicly announces it is religiously based on hate.

The people will never allow racist, white-supremacist rule. The Supreme Court is the last Constitutional check against executive power.

After that, it is simply a Republic that you failed to keep.
Bart Strupe (Pennsylvania)
Donald Trump was not elected by a majority of the people. He lost the election by 3 million votes.
Except, that millions of illegal aliens voted, making your assertion worthless.
nraendowment (Kalifornia)
"Here is the test of whether the Court is really a check or a balance against executive power. Donald Trump was not elected by a majority of the people. He lost the election by 3 million votes

Look up why the Founding Fathers created the electoral college and why it is so vital. Then you'll understand.
William Case (Texas)
Trump won the electoral vote. There is no competition for the popular vote. Trump did not bother to campaign in California, which gave Clinton her margin in the popular vote.
Spencer Lewen (New York)
Why is it so hard for people to understand that when a court blocks your initiative or review, calling it unconstitutional, the very last thing you ever do is ignore that court order and proceed with the review anyways? You know, because that would be illegal? And the negative coverage and public outcry of doing so would be enormous?

You can't have your cake and eat it too people.
"The justices, in effect, said that foreigners with ties or relationships in the United States would not be prohibited from entering the country. But, those applying for visas who had never been here, or had no family, business or other ties could be prohibited."

The above suggests that those currently with ties to the United States have been appropriately and adequately vetted. But President Trump wants us to believe that the vetting process is flawed and that we need improved, extreme vetting.

President Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too. The inherent contradiction of the temporary ban with President Trump's own words, tweets, and arguments are exposed in full. If the vetting process is an issue, then there is an issue with those who currently have ties to the United States. If the vetting process isn't an issue, then Trump's order is what he has always claimed it to be: a travel ban on Muslims.
William Case (Texas)
The Obama administration placed the six countries on the list of countries in which terrorist screening procedures are inadequate. The list is complied by the National Security Agencies, the Homeland Security Department, the CIA and the State Department.
Michael Branagan (Silver Spring, MD)
Let me get this straight. The Supremes are permitting the 90 day ban so The Donald can study how to do extreme vetting. So just what has The Donald been doing since January 20th. Have they not had 90 days since January 20th and now or has my (or his) ability to count days been inhibited in some way?
alan brown (manhattan)
Let me clarify this. The Supreme Court is holding that most of the travel ban appears to be lawful and is reinstating it pending a final review of its merits in October. You are not wrong about the 90 days and the Supreme Court can count too. If Trump is smart he will install safeguards between now and October, if he has not done so already, and drop the appeal.
Brent Jatko (Houston TX)
I think that was 90 legislative days. Given how much this Congress hates to actually govern, that may not have passed.
William Case (Texas)
The administration has explained that the Hawaii court order was so sweeping, even the vetting work has ground to a halt.” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said, “We have complied by that injunction. We've put our pens down. We haven't done any work on it. So the 90-day period, in our view, has not been able to run at all.”
Clayton (Somerville, MA)
The intent of Winthrop's "city upon a hill" from his sermon "Modell of Christian Charity" has to be one of the most egregiously butchered and speciously appropriated references in American history. The sermon did not envision us to be on that hill because we were a model of virtue and exceptionalism to be admired by all. Conversely, "the eyes of all people" would be upon us to hold us to account. And if we failed to deliver on the higher moral and ethical standards that God expected of us - well, Winthrop threatened, it wasn't going to be good news.
And here we are, routinely assuming we've shown the world how to live up to these standards, when we have routinely failed to show anybody anything resembling them, particularly now.
Mr Chang Shih An (Taiwan)
Trump may get two more SCOTUS appointments before his first term ends/
Judge Ruth G may be forced to recuse herself from anything to do with decisions by POTUS. Or she might have to retire.

Sure is going to be interesting times.
Stephen (Austin, TX)
Again Trump's own words "Muslim ban" proves it discriminates against individuals based on their religion. That is both shameful and obviously unconstitutional. "Drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination" couldn't be more true.
nraendowment (Kalifornia)
Sanity wins, Leftists lose. Now it's time to impeach the rogue judges that clearly don't feel bound by the Constitution and established law.
Six Minutes Remaining (Out There)
Come back and talk about this after the ruling. Don't you want to hear the arguments, before you are so sure that the Right's idea of 'sanity' wins out?
nraendowment (Kalifornia)
I know the President has the legal authority to decide who is allowed to enter the United States. Period. The activist judges claiming otherwise should be impeached for incompetence.
A moment of rationality at long last.
Josey (Washington)
The key to the lower court decisions is that the Trump administration could produce no evidence at all that the ban is needed. There was plenty of evidence revealing President Trump's animus to people of Muslim nations, other than those where he has a vested, personal economic interest.

The Supreme Court has now validated the principle that Trump can block immigration from any country he wants, with the exceptions of people with existing connections to the United States. And he can do so with no reason at all.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
The Supreme Court has now validated the principle that Trump can block immigration from any country he wants, with the exceptions of people with existing connections to the United States. And he can do so with no reason at all.


Which 8 USC 1182 gives him the power to do
"Mr. Trump’s revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government’s screening and vetting procedures."
I understand that there are real implications here but sometimes we need to step back and just question some of the logic underlying the argument. If the length of the ban was to allow the government to address current procedures, couldn't they have spent the 90 days or 120 days doing that and we'd be done?

Well, no. Instead we have a political game where the idea is to create a policy that is limited enough to be constitutional yet strong enough to be viewed as "ban" in the eyes of the constituents that wanted one.
Trump is stealing our beacon of peace, freedom and welcome from the Statue of Liberty.
EC Speke (Denver)
The POTUS with the SCOTUS... in his pocket.

You go justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Co, supporting the values of less rights and freedoms for all, especially the poor and powerless, by paying back the bosses who put you up on the lucrative SCOTUS with a wink and a nod and your decisions.

US justice can be bought, and often is. The wealthy and well connected win, the people lose.
Bruce11 (USA)
Yes, it was a 9-0 vote to overturn significant parts of the decisions of two mostly democrat Appeals courts. Yet the readers comments here, 90%, are outraged at how unconstitutional and/or unfair it is. I submit that the NYT readers and many liberals are the ones who cannot see beyond their bias and ideology, cannot see things objectively, not the other way around. That is the bubble that you have heard so much about.
Screen Comment (New York)
NRA peddles guns to Americans, we kill each other at the rate of 30 thousand people a year. But racial profiling and closing the borders, oh yes, that makes sense.
SuperNaut (The Wezt)
"we kill each other at the rate of 30 thousand people a year."

2/3rds are suicides, so no and no.
I understand the right wing's approach to policy and understand why they think this policy makes sense. I also understand why they think it makes them safe (for now). But what's also clear is that they seem to lack historical understanding or context, specifically with respect to American law, values, and immigration. I don't doubt that they love America, as they say they do, but the question I wonder is "which America, and from what time period, is it that they love?"
NYer (New York)
For better or worse, power must vest in someone. We cannot claim to wish to do away with United States Customs and open the doors to everyone without serious vetting. Immigration issues are infinitely more difficult and complex than when our grandfathers and mothers streamed over to Ellis Island. The court must take the long view and recognize that the next president and the presidents thereafter will be required to follow the limitations or expansions they impose per their interpretation of the law and the constitution. The issue is presidential power and not Donald Trump, he is temporary, the office of the President is not.
Dr. Dillamond (NYC)
To conservatives: what is this ban ok, when Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Chechnya, Iraq, and all of Central Asia is not included?
Iraq is included. Have no idea what your doctorate is in, but it must not have required research.

Moreover, you seem to just throw out a lot of Muslim countries to make a point. It has been explained that this is not a Muslim ban. These countries were selected for scrutiny by the Obama administration.

Again, research.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Would you like to see it broadened to include all that you mentioned? Maybe you're on to something... Unfortunately, however, Trump’s order targets only the same seven countries that were singled out with a law Obama signed in December 2015...
Please follow your own advice: Iraq is not included in the latest POTUS travel ban attempt.
The reasons Saudi Arabia is not included, despite their support for terrorism and nurturing of the majority of 9/11 terrorists, is their wealth and business ties to Trump interests, obviously. (And they gave Trump that big "award,"... That is all Somalia has to do, the dummies!)
srwdm (Boston)
The problem goes well beyond presidential powers under the constitution.

The problem is that we have a president who the majority of this country does not trust and has no confidence in.

That is a terrible predicament.
Liza (Seattle)
Unfortunately, half of the people who you describe as a majority didn't even take the effort to vote, and by doing so, voted by default. Voting should be mandatory (sorry if that takes away peoples' personal freedom to not participate).
Koolaid (Kabul)
U.S. has done a terrible job in projecting power around the globe since World War II. All the problems facing America is a consequence of its own miscalculations and missteps, particularly as it relates to foreign policy making. A great example of this is funfing anti-Soviet foreign fighters in late 20th Century. After these Islamic fundamentalists defeated the Soviet superpower, U.S. hightails it out of Afghanistan leaving behind a cauldron of problems that have caused so much unnecessary fear that Americans voted for a person like Trump, and now his travel ban. Stupid American leaders are at fault, and they know it. They are embarrasaed by their callous and cynical geo political ploys.
Carol Avrin (California)
Time is up: the temporary travel ban has expired. The Trump regime had more than the original 120 days to implement extreme vetting protocols.
John (Bernardsville, NJ)
As you know Carol...this has nothing to do with vetting protocols nor safety but everything to do with hate. Pure and simple hate.
Midwest Josh (Middle America)
To John, you are correct, it is about hate. It's about protecting us from radical Muslims who hate us. Notice the violence in Europe.
John (Bernardsville, NJ)
Why are we so friendly with Saudi Arabia then and the ban doesn't affect them?
C Merkel (New Jersey)
His 90 days are already up.
What has he done to improve vetting? Nothing. The whole thing is a farce.
C.C. (California)
Welcome to the Twilight Zone folks! It looks like the Supreme Court has moved to a more "conservative view point" thanks to Trump appointing Gorsuch. I don't see any rational judge favoring this travel ban since it is by definition is unconstitutional under the law since it discriminates people based on their religion and their background, specifically Muslims.

Trump is a clown and his supporters are living in their own delusional fantasies if they believe this travel ban will stop any future carnage in the U.S. The Supreme Court is fooling themselves if they believe this travel ban is in the realm of the constitution. Human nature is unpredictable so there's no telling when another future terrorist even might happen. The main issue we should focus on is to prevent in-grown terrorism from taking place within the U.S.
Senate27 (Washington, DC)
The president's authority to prohibit aliens from entering the United States is not constrained - he/she can ban any group(s) of people from entering the United States for security reasons.

It can be a race ban, a religious ban, a ban on ethnicity, a ban on certain countries. anything
Maria Ashot (EU)
A perfectly non-Muslim American senior citizen shot at members of Congress and inflicted serious injuries. That's where the next carnage came from. Let's not be so selective in where and how we apply the "terrorist" label.
jdwright (New York)
The Supreme Court is following the law: Section 212f of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act allows the president to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Evangeline (Manhattan)
Glad to see some sanity from SC, but this ban needs to be broader and tougher and most certainly not temporary.
John (Bernardsville, NJ)
Trump's hate and ignorance is permeating our country.
Russ Welton (Tomball, Texas)
Alito and Thomas, joined by Gorsuch as a SCOTUS voting bloc? God help us.
Buck up, Justice Kennedy. You're the only thing standing between the court and the radical right.
Ajvan1 (Montpelier)
Why would this be a surprise? The Roberts court reflects the hate filled, extreme right wing, Fascist values of the nation.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Did you read the SCOTUS order? Or even the article, for that matter? All nine Justices -- including the Clinton and Obama appointees -- joined in the order; the dissents by Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch were limited to only a part of the opinion... Everyone recognized the lower federal courts had erred...
Israr (Toronto)
The US has every right to bar any one it determines will cause harm to its citizens from entering its borders. It cannot, however, simultaneously proclaim its supreme moral and social status. America is either a guiding light to other nations, an unwavering proponent of liberty and justice, or it bans people from coming in based on their religious background. It cannot be both.
So I am welcome to walk across your Canadian border, Israr, and live my life as I see fit up there with you in Toronto? Good to know. I appreciate your generosity. Please post your phone number in case of the very remote chance the Canadian police pick me up for being an unauthorized alien over in your neighborhood. I will need you to explain all this to them.
William Case (Texas)
Many commentators ask why new screening or vetting procedures weren’t put into place during the months the travel ban was working its way through the courts. NPR White House correspondent Scott Horsley explained: “The idea was the government would use this 90-day pause in travel to figure out what kind of information it needed to get from those foreign governments to determine who is safe to allow into the United States, who might pose a security threat. And in theory, n that work could have been going on even while the travel ban was on hold. . . But the administration complains that the Hawaii court order was so sweeping, even the vetting work has ground to a halt.” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall explained this to one of the appeals court, saying “We have complied by that injunction. We've put our pens down. We haven't done any work on it. So the 90-day period, in our view, has not been able to run at all
Yellow Rose (CA)
How does the distinction of whether someone has ties to someone or something in the US prevent anything? It has been demonstrated over and over that terrorists put affiliation to anything but their own twisted beliefs over their loved ones, anyone and anything else . . . sad to see any kind of victory for the Trump admin. The Supreme Court is not looking so supreme these days.
JKR (New York)
The Court's reasoning was not about whether ties to the US make us more or less safe. The point is that foreign nationals with no ties to the United States (unlike those with bona fide connections) have no relevant constitutional rights. In other words, they have no right to challenge the travel ban and so the Court couldn't permit the lower courts to keep enjoining the ban in their favor.

Often the law turns on distinctions like this that have nothing to do with the case at hand. The Court's job is to police the boundaries of the law in all cases, so as to prevent unforeseen (and sometimes foreseeable) consequences in other areas. Each ruling has ripple effects that the Court has to always be careful to spot and consider.
Bruce Olson (Houston)
Hey Christopher, did you know anybody here when you came visiting in 1492?


Sorry, so sad, stay away?

That about sums up my opinion of both Trump and the current SCOTUS.
Since it has been 90 days since this ban was imposed and nothing happened here like in Europe, I don't see how Trump can assert that doing it in the net 90 days will change anything...except his bluster and lies.

Meantime we look like we are about to strip the poorest among us, the elderly and the disabled of one more shred of an already inadequate safety net. A healthcare system McConnell says will only get better and Trump promised would be so good that not one American will lose his, or more likely her, healthcare and it will be the best in the world.

We elected him and them. We deserve every scam he and they perpetrate. It just makes me want to throw up constantly...but I better wait. It will soon be a preexisting condition so the insurance won't cover it, no matter how deadly.
Christopher was just searching for a better life so that he could provide or his family. He was doing a job none of the nativists wanted to do. You have a problem with that all of a sudden?
jeremyp (florida)
Unfortunately the court can only rule on whether the POTUS has the right to enforce such a ban, rather than whether such an enforcement will have any affect on security. If enforced, and if there is no terror attack from any member on the list of countries, he can, and will, call it the greatest, most effective law ever enacted to save America, and to continue it's course back to greatness.
Maita Moto (San Diego)
Are we happy or what? Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito , the three (1+1+1) Supremes will unite to tear down the Constitution. Soon, I am afraid, the SC robes will be a very scary Halloween costume!
jdwright (New York)
You do realize that this temporary stay was a 9-0 decision...
DRS (New York)
The idea that this travel ban is a "Muslim Ban" is quite simply false. However, even if Trump's order were a "Muslim Ban", people outside the U.S. without any nexus to the U.S. do not have U.S. constitutional rights.
Burroughs (Western Lands)
Will Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from this case? Last fall, she publicly stated that should Trump be elected president she would move to New Zealand. I'm not sure that she has applied for immigration to NZ, but we should take her at her word. Obviously, a petitioner for immigration to another country, as well as someone rejecting the president's election, is a prejudiced justice. I expect this summer there will be more and more pressure on her to admit that her judicial temperament as well as her personal animus to Trump should disqualify her from ruling on the "ban."
coleman (dallas)
the SC line of reasoning is classic CYA mentality.
if they did not rule in the president's favor
and someone got into the country and
made some type of attack,
they would be held culpable.
now, they've let themselves off that hook in advance.
frankly0 (Boston MA)
So are the 9th and 4th Circuit Courts now going to find a way to Resist the Supreme Court itself?

Why wouldn't their doing so surprise me?
mannyv (portland, or)
Are Democrats really going to take any act of Presidential discretion to the Supreme Court?

Don't they have any real agenda left at this point?
RB (West Palm Beach)
The hand writings are on the wall. This concession to partly enforce the Trump ban is a harbinger of the big decision to declare the ban constitutional in October. With five extremist on the bench of the Supreme Court this is entirely possible.
Saints Fan (Houston, TX)
No, there are only FOUR liberals ruling to the left on every issue.
JKR (New York)
Five extremists? I have no idea which Justices you mean, but in no reasonable count can I get up to 5. Can we all, left and right, try to avoid the exaggerations, the despair, and the anger that Trump uses to such effect? The best Trump antidote is a good dose of confident reason.
KHW (Seattle)
I am beginning to fear that the government we knew may not only be endangered but may disappear all together. From welcoming those seeking a better life, war, tyranny, wanting to live free and contribute to this wonderful land we live in, I am beginning to see it erode on the edges and rot from within. This is one instance that I hope I am wrong and off base but with this ban, cuts to healthcare looming, retirement becoming a dream only, housing out of reach for many if not most, and higher education becoming a pipe dream we may never get back to where we were in the world and the world order. OMG!!! What has been wrought by making this tweeter-in-chief president and giving over both houses of Congress? If there is a God, please help us now!
Lee Harrison (Albany/Kew Gardens)
This is as weird and seems as deceitful as the Supreme Court decision that gave GWB the presidency.

The real effect of this is to impose a 120 day ban on refugees from these countries, because almost none of the refugees have the required "relationship," while simultaneously continuing to permit most other visa applicants to come, because they do. (in otherwords, we afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable.)

The callousness of this is striking, as is the obvious question nobody in the Trump administration will answer: why haven't they fixed whatever problem they claim they have, given the time that has passed?

And then of course "...hear arguments in October, noting that the government had not asked it to act faster." What a joke ... that's more than 60 days before they even hear arguments ... how long until they decide?

The 90 day period will surely be over, probably the 120 day one too. Of course the government doesn't want them to go any faster!
Ronin (Michigan)
Here's a great question: This Muslim ban was signed well over 90 days ago. Why is it while this was tied up in the courts and struck down in courts and being appealed and tweeted about by Traitor Trump did his administration and Homeland Security re-evaluate those polices and practices in place that this ban was meant to do over that 90 day period?

If anyone honestly believes this was about evaluating anything, you're truly gullible and will buy anything. This so called 90 day ban would have been extended in perpetuity making it permanent while still being temporary and resolving and evaluating NOTHING! This was more about banning and lying about Muslims than protecting national security. He's done not one thing about Russia even though he gets and has gotten the intelligence that tells him it was Russia that attacked us for months to almost a year.

Can you imagine this lot when an actual massive 9/11 style attack happens in our country? I'd say God help us but in giving us Trump by way of the Russians God has damned us.
Ninbus (New York City)
What happened to my country?

I don't know where I am...

NOT my president
Rich (Delmar, NY)
What about a travel ban on trump's weekly golf travels?
citybumpkin (Earth)
Curiously, conservative justices never seem to be much concerned about overreach of government power, particularly executive power, when said power is exercised against someone other than a large corporation or business interest.
lakeleader (oologah OK)
Actually this seems like a reasonable approach--the exemption to the ban seems reasonable, although I didn't see anything about how refugees facing imminent harm are to be treated. But is sounds as if the case thoroughly debated the issues, decided on a reasonable compromise pending full development of the fact, and ordered it. It sounds like a court that did what it is supposed to--identify the wheat that needs study and care, and get the chaff out of the way so the main issues can be addressed. I've seen much worse decisions based on the story. I'll want to read the full opinion and dissent, of course, but initial reaction is that it is dealing with a legitimate factual and legal issue on which reasonable minds can disagree and is looking for more facts on which to base a final ruling.
srwdm (Boston)
I am surprised at the accommodation.

I also note that justice Ginsburg is frail and old and could be gone any day. The Supreme Court situation was perhaps the most important consideration in the past election.
Alex E (elmont, ny)
It is a sensible decision. We don't want to be a "shining duck" on the hill to be praised as a shining light on the hill.
To those who did not vote for HRC...and still believe in democracy....
Elections do have consequences...two lower courts said it was illegal several times and now we have a final court that had a seat stolen (in the form of Neal Gorsuch) from the prior President signaling that the travel ban is OK....I fear this will be the tagline over and over again.

Hillary was not the perfect candidate...but what we have wrought for the next four years at least will be a lot worse. You want a "revolution" have got by the plutocracy that is taking over this country.
William Case (Texas)
Though the New York Times fails to mention it, the Supreme Court ruling was 9-0.
jdwright (New York)
MGK, you do realize that this stay was a 9-0 decision, right? Even if Gorsuch had not legally obtained his seat, the court still would have reinstated parts of the order until it can be heard fully in October. What does Gorsuch have to to with it?
JD...thought I read that Gorsuch and Thomas dissented?
joseph (albany)
Russian investigation going nowhere, the election of a Republican in Georgia by four points when Trump only won by 1.5 points, and now a 9 to 0 decision in favor, at least temporarily, of the travel ban.

It has been a very tough week for the New York Times, CNN and others.
William LeGro (Los Angeles)
How does that fence railing feel, justices? See what happens when you try to avoid taking a stand?

The problem is so obvious that even Thomas saw it: how are border agents going to decide who wants to do us harm and "who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive?” The agents are supposed to decide all that at the border?

Think of the lines that will form as they try to figure out if this guy from Syria is going to be hardworking and productive. What are they going to do? Ask him? Strap him to a lie detector? Waterboard him? Wouldn't it be easier - not to mention more honest - to just stop people trying to enter with bomb vests?

The lower courts didn't find the executive order unconstitutional for no reason. Its intent is clear - to keep *Muslims* from six countries from entering the country. Trump himself said that was his intent. But Saudi Arabia didn't make the list - that's where Osama bin Laden and 15 of the hijackers were from. Pakistan (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and Egypt (Mohammed Atta) are not on the list either. So the rationale for this order is what, again?

Well, it's all about politics - how it plays with Trump's Know-Nothing base, whose ignorance extends to the Constitution. That's no excuse to discriminate against people based on their religion.

Surely the justices see the slippery slope on one side of their fence - if Trump can stop Muslims at the border, why not round up all Muslim Americans?
William Case (Texas)
The object of the travel ban is not to stop the 9/11 Terror Attacks but to stop future terror attacks. Saudi Arabia is not on the list because terrorist screening procedures are now considered adequate. Screening procedures in the six countries on the travel ban list ar5e consider inadequate, hence, the ban. The objective is to stop terrorists, not Muslims. The residents of the six countries will still be predominantly Muslim with the 90-day ban is lifted.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
Surely the justices see the slippery slope on one side of their fence - if Trump can stop Muslims at the border, why not round up all Muslim Americans?


You mean like FDR did with Japanese in 1942?
hyp3rcrav3 (Seattle)
Any decision made by a Supreme court with Nail Gorsuch on it will be illegitimate. The Justice should have been Merrick Garland have it not been for irrational GOP hatred of a black president
This whole Republican government was installed with voter suppression, voter purges, and fraud.
The whole Republican government is Illegitimate.
Richard he (NYC)
Roberts and Alito are in the same boat as Gorsuch: appointed by a president with no legitimacy.
Scrumper (Savannah)
This is a smoke screen to start a Muslim ban. It has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe. Do you know how many thousands of giant container ships dock in US ports each day from all over the world? Easiest thing in the world for a terrorist to hitch a ride and come into the US. I'm afraid our President is a liar and a poor one at that.
Ray (Texas)
What's not featured is the fact that the Court's decision to lift the injunction was unanimous. When you have Ginsburg and Thomas on the same side of an issue, someone done screwed up. In this case, that would The the 9th Circuit.
Gretchen King (Midwest)
We humans are all related Mr. Trump and supremes. Your relationship test is illogical and inhumane.
EC Speke (Denver)
It's been obvious for some time to Native and African Americans indeed to all citizens without financial means that have for whatever reasons brushed up against the US justice system, that justice for them has been justice in name only. Here, it appears the US Supreme court may be kowtowing to our billionaire POTUS by expanding selective American justice against the citizens of some of the poorest nations on earth, indeed nations and peoples that haven't been responsible for crimes against America or Americans.

Why are the poor nations and people being picked on when some wealthy nation's nationals who have committed violent crimes against Americans on American soil get a free pass?

This all smells like politics, privilege and yes racism with the white lady holding the scales of justice not being blindfolded, but with eyes wide open leering at a slanted scale particularly the slanted side holding the stack of big bucks.

Here, the SCOTUS is patting itself on the back for stealing the freedom of travel from certain nations and peoples for no good reason beside those coming from an often hysterical and lying snowflake POTUS who himself at times in the past has incited violence on fellow American citizens at his rallies.

If today's SCOTUS can't stand up for rights and freedoms, where's our modern day, MLK, John or Bobby when you need them?
John (NYS)
If the lower courts made an obvious unconstitutional ruling, should impeachment of the ruling judges be the remedy.

The courts historically, at times, have seemed to willfully rule contrary to the intent of the constitution and / or its amendments when they were ratified. What could be a greater offense for a judge sworn to uphold The Constitution.

In short, what do you do with a judge who willingly violates the most obvious intended meaning of The Constitution? Impeachment and removals seems the obvious answer.
Richard (NYC)
No, because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality. It's like the old Hanes underwear commercial: it's not unconstitutional until they say it is:
John (NYS)
I was referring to the lower court judges. However, the same would apply to the Supreme Court.

Suppose a state reinstated slavery laws as they had been before the civil war and the SCOTUS found it Constitutional and consistent with both the 13th and 14th amendments. Would such a clearly unconstitutional decision warrant the impeachment of the SCOTUS judges supporting it? Or would Slavery become legal because SCOTUS said it was?

Are we required to allow judges to amend the Constitution through rulings? Or are they limited to making rulings that are arguably constitutional.
steve (santa cruz, ca.)
Thing is John, the Constitution is a slender document -- yet its interpretation fills up law libraries. A judge cannot be impeached because his or her interpretation differs from yours. In the final analysis, the Constitution says whatever the federal judiciary says that it does. Neither your opinion nor mine count -- except over time as a part of "public opinion" (judges live in and partake of their time like anyone else).
Ockham9 (Norman, OK)
Since Inauguration Day, we've endured 156 days of the Trump administration. The travel ban was supposed to last 90 days and the refugee suspension 120 days, because the Trump administration said it needed that time to assess the criteria and security procedures. If 120 days were deemed sufficient to ensure safety, they should already have completed their review; if they haven't been able to do this in the time they indicated, why should we give them a mulligan (to use a term Trump should know)? Throw out the case!
William Case (Texas)
The New York Times article neglects to mention that the Supreme Court ruling was unanimous. The appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the court made no difference.
Coffee Bean (Java)

That means unanimity in thought for a (R) president; that's NOT allowed on ANYTHING that comes before SCOTUS.
steve (santa cruz, ca.)
Actually, Mr. Case, the article refers to the fact that the ruling was 9-0. That means that it was unanimous by definition. Did you need the NYT to use the word "unanimous" as well ?
Moreover, this is only a temporary ruling that sustains only a part of the ban while the Court considers the administration's rationale for sustaining the ban in its entirety.
By the way, Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dissented from the majority's decision to sustain only a part of the ban -- they wanted the whole thing sustained. So, in that sense it wasn't unanimous.
Michael (New York)
Trump probably believes that he can fire the Supreme Court justices if their decision goes against him. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio--what on earth have you done?
Mr Chang Shih An (Taiwan)
So many other states gave Trump the electoral college why are you blaming three states? You should be blaming crooked Hillary.
ANetliner NetLiner (Washington, DC area)
What of refugees applying for residency in the United States?

I am very concerned about the direction of this court.
engineer (nyc)
It's an interesting time to be a Canadian.
Antepli Naci (Spokane, WA)
Ha! It would also be the first time.
jflores (nyc)
The Trump administration has had more than a 120 days to revise its vetting procedures. Why are they still using this to discriminate against people based on their religion? Who will be banned next, Jews? Will we ban Catholics because they are not born again Christians? Where will the banning stop?
John Hall (Pittsburgh)
These are extraordinary times where the enemy lives among us, and wants to do us harm. Look at the mess that France, England, and large swaths of Europe are in by opening their doors to the swarm of immigrants. We want and need the immigrant in this country, but we should be extremely cautious on who enters into this country.
SC (California)
The Supreme Court has lost its place as the above politics with only 50% vote to confirm a justice. I am so sad for democracy and so ashamed of us, as a nation.
Lucas Eller (Murray Hill)
Can we send Trump voters and supporters to those countries for a one-year period of time?
They're going to learn some good lessons on human behavior and compassion. And they will never elect a man like Mr. Trump to be the president in this country.
Lots of armchair warriors here. They want freedom and protection but there is no way they (or any of their kids) are picking up a gun or fighting anyone who wants to harm them. Just send us the bill and we will pay it. This is what we get after 15 years of giving trophies to everyone in the little league game just for showing up.
Here is a clear view into the confused world of right wing politics: something about trophies, presumably little league, paying bills, and presumably fighting somewhere for elusive "freedom" but not entirely sure why.
Marko (USA)
Supreme Court position is open.

Applicant should be a huge crank, a total curmudgeon, that one guy at law school and at the appellate courts wholly out-of-step with his peers in every way. Picked on in childhood, secret dislike of people preferred. Limited social contacts, few friends, hates parties.

Submit application to White House immediately.
kj (us)
A really sad day for the United States. Just staying the injunction, no matter what the final decision, erodes our standing and our historical role in the world. The message of the poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty is obsolete in the Age of Trump. So, I offer my re-write of the poem, to be posted at our Airports and along our boarders, until we make America American again:

Not like the robed lady of American fame,
With glowing torch lighting hope from land to land;
Here at airports and on our south border shall stand
A militarized force, and mammoth wall, whose shame
Is its detained refugees, and its sullied name: “
Department of Homeland Security. Its iron hand
Grows world-wide distain, as zealous agents command
Sanctuary cities that dark demagogues blame.
“Keep, proud democracies, your fine equality!”
Mock Muslim bans. “Give me your wealthy, your corrupt,
Your ravaging oligarchs yearning to spend free,”
Hail EB-5 visas, now hawked from shore to shore:
“Send these, the swindlers, the war-crime accused to me,
I’ll launder their riches behind Trump’s yellow door!”
Tired of Hypocrisy (USA)
Mr. President please tell the NYT and its readers what your new vetting plans are so that they can be published in there entirety. I'm sure that members of ISIS and their sympathizers need to know what the plans are so they can arrange ways to thwart them.
ed (honolulu)
It's obvious they'll get their jihadist relatives and mosques to sponsor them.
TravelingProfessor (Great Barrington, MA)
Ask the Native Americans how unfettered immigration worked out for them.
It actually wasn't unfettered at all. To the contrary, their reactions, for better or worse, were militant.
TravelingProfessor (Great Barrington, MA)
They had no choice. They were being driven off their land and/or slaughtered. Those who were left over were subjected to diseases, forced poverty, and their identity is practically gone.
Coffee Bean (Java)
- And yet, TP, until the 'New World' became the United States of America, was a nation without laws and began to expand west, 'twas our ancestors who were guilty of such acts.

Had it not been for those unfettered deeds in random chaotic order, things might not be as they are today. (Chaos Theory :: Butterfly Effect)
simone (new jersey)
the initial EO was based on administration claim that it needed time to figure out what to do. It is over 120 days since then. this case should have been thrown out as irrelevant
Rickyme52 (Al)
The Republic is under attack. The court has turned in favor of the Trump dictatorship. Who is next onTrump's hit list? I am appalled that the court has swung so far to the right.
Fellow citizens, get ready for an assault on our basic rights and the American way of life. This administration is pure evil!!!!
Nathaniel Brown (Edmonds, WA)
All this fuss over immigrants who for by far the greater part want nothing but safety and an honest chance at a better life - and nothing about gun violence, a clear and present danger to us all. Muslims are a cheap target for Trump, but the NRA is one of the great pillars of the GOP...
Larry Buchas (New Britain, CT)
Total cop out!

Either it's a Muslim ban or it's not!
This rates with the Dred Scott decision as one of the worst in my book.

Just think what the world sees in us now. God help us.
Jj (Holmdel nj)
It's not a Muslim ban.
Larry Buchas (New Britain, CT)
All of Mr. Trump's actions and reactions say it is.
Jj (Holmdel nj)
Well, the SCOTUS didn't agree with your legal opinion.
SilkPony (Real World)
Someone (living on Planet Earth) please explain the following:

1. Keep hearing from Dems and MSM that the six country directive issued is a "Muslim Ban". So Muslims living in France, Germany, etc., can't enter the US even though they don't come from those countries?

2.) Keep hearing that the Lower Courts used Trump's comment about a "Muslim Ban" --- when he was a CANDIDATE --- to justify their ruling against him. Obama --- when he was the PRESIDENT --- told George Stephanopoulos SEVERAL TIMES that Obamacare "WASN'T A TAX", and yet the Supreme Court IGNORED those comments when they approved Obamacare WHICH INCLUDED TAXES. What am I missing?

Transcript: President Barack Obama
By ABC NEWS Sept. 20, 2009

Possible MSM distorting, omitting, and/or using their "selective memory" again? Just asking.
JKR (New York)
Your first question is a valid one, though it arguably oversimplifies matters. A racially or religiously motivated policy could be just that and still fall short of 100% effectiveness. But, I agree that the Trump administration has a better national security argument than many critics give them credit for.

Your second point, on the other hand, is off the mark. The relevance of Trump's comments here are in demonstrating his intent, which is relevant to determining whether the purpose of the ban is to ban muslims (not ok) or whether it really is about national security (ok). In other words, intent matters here and so the President's words are relevant.

The Obama administration saying that the mandate was not a tax is not even persuasive authority to the Supreme Court on the operation of the law itself. Obama's intent was irrelevant; all that mattered was what the law actually said and did.

So, I don't think the media is at fault for omitting any of that. I think your logic is flawed.
SilkPony (Real World)
With all due respect, I requested comments from Planet Earth residents.

"Obama's INTENT was irrelevant...". Really? In the real world, people with functioning brains now know --- beyond a doubt --- that the President of the United States was LYING. His "intent" was to mislead people that he wasn't going to impose HUGE TAXES (e.g... Individual Mandate, Medical Devices, etc.) when that's exactly what he "intended".

Trump, not an elected official at the time --- let alone the President --- modified his position on a "Muslim Ban" over time, but that doesn't count. The Lower Courts are somehow able to Devine his "intent" --- even though his now presidential directive ALLOWS Muslims, from other than the six specifically listed countries, to enter the US. Trump's "intent" applies, Obama's "intent" isn't an intent. Right!

Thank God for the Supreme Court which today voted UNANIMOUSLY to allow the directive to move forward for EVERYONE in those six countries except those with relatives or previous business interests in our country --- the current status. If Trump's directive was "unconstitional" as breathlessly proclaimed by Dems and the MSM, the entire directive would have been thrown out.

So much for "court shopping".
JKR (New York)
We don't know if the Supreme Court voted unanimously or not. It was a per curiam decision.

With regards to the issue of intent, I was talking about what is legally relevant to a case. The legal challenges to the individual mandate were not focused on Obama's intent. They were focused on the operation of the law itself. The challenge to this law is focused on Trump's intent. Hence the former is irrelevant and the latter is relevant.

Courts divine intent, determine whether a given reason is pretextual, and look for motivations all the time. It is a basic function of the courts -- when intent and purpose is relevant.

In this case, no court has yet reached the merits of the case. The fight thus far has been over whether an injunction is appropriate (which implicates the merits, but does not decide them). So no court has yet determined what Trump's intent is.

The Supreme Court, too, has yet to determine whether to throw out the entire directive. That is the purpose of the hearing in October, by which point the whole case will largely be mooted.

For what it's worth, I think on the law Trump should probably win this one. So I don't know why you're getting all hysterical.

Also, I love how when people start a sentence with "With all due respect," they jump straight to being disrespectful. Please stick to your arguments.
Dan (New York)
Liberals: we must always respect court decisions that go our way. All other ones are clearly illegitimate. Keep it up!
amado (Calhoun)
the collapse of the Roman empire didn't start with the Hun and Germanic invasion!! it had started when Romans began to persecute Christians and build the Hadrian and Trajan and whoever's walls!! I'm afraid history is repeating itself.
Saints Fan (Houston, TX)
That's w wild interpretation of history. Thanks.
Ann Marie (Huntington, NY)
Why isn't Saudi Arabia included in this ban of mostly Muslim nations?
RBC (New York City)
Because as long as you do business with the United States we'll give you a pass, even if your country is the foundation of religious extremism. By the way, its worth noting that Saudi Arabia funds ISIS.
William Case (Texas)
Saudi Arabia is not on the list because the National Security Agency, Homeland Security Department, and State Department considers screening procedures in Saudi Arabia adequate.
Outer (Space)
I'm sure ISIS is very pleased. Whatever the convoluted legal details of this announcement might be, the Muslim world will hear only the anti-Muslim argument through their propaganda filter. Great for recruiting new fighters and suicide bombers. Nice going, DJT.
Chris (California)
Here is another test of our system of checks and balances and a way that will partially revise our values around the purpose of immigration. Hopefully, the Court will see past the political exigencies attached to this executive order and decide that what constitutes an entering person's “...bona fide relationship with (an) entity in the United States" is in fact the civil society the US represents. In short, an entering person has a relationship with the protection of individual rights and opportunity lacking in their country of exit.
Juvenal451 (CA)
That's an executive order that could have been issued months ago, if there had been any adults available to do the drafting.
crowsnest (toronto)
Trump has had 6 months to tighten the rigor of the vetting process, yet Justice Thomas believes that partial assent to the travel ban will prove unworkable because even the basic task of distinguishing between new and previous applicants will prove too complex. Such specious thinking fits with his history of dissent. Gorsuch, painted as the voice of reason, seems to have joined Alito in placing politics above justice.
Seatant (New York, NY)
The truth of the matter is that the Executive Order was not needed to implement the travel ban. Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that "Every alien...shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status." Consular Officers use this section liberally to deny tourist visas to a host of individuals for all countries who cannot establish a bona fide nonimmigrant intent, and such findings of fact are not subject to judicial review. It's probably a safe bet that a vast majority of citizens from the 6 named countries would not be getting tourist visas, with or without the Executive Order.
Kenny (San Jose)
If SCOTUS agrees the president has nearly unimpeachable authority under the guise of security, all Americans regardless of party should recognize this double edge sword.

A very activist president could develop security arguments limiting gun rights, forcing climate change efforts, eliminating sanctuary cities, prosecute journalists for leaking national security information and a whole host of other topics.

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Prairie Populist (Le Sueur, MN)
Today in two cases the Court took a swing at the constitutional separation of church and state. These two decisions seem to be connected, at least philosophically.

In the case of Trump's travel ban the Court ignored Trump's own assertion that he, and therefore the government he heads, meant to ban certain "Muslims". The Court is apparently okay with that, but one wonders if the Court would rule otherwise if Trump and his government meant to ban certain Catholics instead?

In the second case the Court invalidated a provision of the Missouri state constitution that clearly requires separation of church and state. The Court ruled that a Lutheran church could receive government aid to resurface a playground. The playground aid is trivial, but the revocation of the Missouri constitutional separation of church and state is not. If the Court is consistent then a similar provision in the US Constitution is also unconstitutional. Again, the Court was concerned about the rights of a Lutheran Church. Would the Court feel the same way about a mosque?

This is the problem with putting religious zealots and political ideologues on the Supreme Court: They tie themselves in knots and write bad law to accomplish their minority objectives. It makes a hash out of the law.
Rob Campbell (MA)
It's about time! Now that the Law and Constitution have been upheld, we need to work on ridding ourselves of judicial activism. The ban will be implemented by the end of the week.

Over the next number of weeks and months we will now be able to revamp our procedures for vetting people from the countries on Trump's list, and issue policy accordingly.

Look forward to further bans being issued.

Trump is working to keep our country safe- as promised. We should appreciate the work he is doing.
Jack (NJ)
Is this really an issue? Does the Constitution place any restrictions on control of immigration by the president and do non-citizens have constitutional rights to enter the country? I think it will be a 7-2 vote tonupjold otherwise what will make him the future? A circuit judge can overturn a presidential travel restriction if he/she believes itnis in the national interest for safety?
Bob Garcia (Miami)
What does it say about understanding the law when circuit courts can come up with such a different interpretation than the Supremes (at 9-0)?
ed (honolulu)
That the fourth and ninth circuits are out of whack.
Novoad (USA)
The idea is that the governments of say Saudi Arabia or Egypt would cooperate, or could be made to cooperate, with us in checking very carefully the background of potential immigrants. After all, they are themselves threatened by their fundamentalists.

In Iran or Somalia we have no one reliable to ask.

As to travel, places where there is no territory control by the government, like Syria or Libya, tend to have active terrorism training camps. The Manchester children mass killer went home to Libya to get trained for the bombing.

On the long run a very careful check whether the potential immigrant agrees with the authority of the state over the one of religion is essential, as this is the way the US works, according to our constitution.
Presuming the SCOTUS approves the ban, how difficult will it be to work around this partial wall to entry by the determined anarchist? Probably not difficult at all. Secondly, the acts of terrorism perped in this nation recently have all been home grown. The only relatively foolproof method to solve Trump's paranoia is to block all immigration.
Chaparral Lover (California)
When will any of these rich, out-of-touch corporate-oligarch, money-laundering enriched non-entities (I include in this assessment the entirety of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) do anything to help the vast majority of the American people? Never? That's my guess.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Help the vast majority of the people? Why, they just did...
Angela (Pittsburgh, PA)
Here is a suggestion. If Trump actually cares about security, staff his departments and work on his enhanced vetting procedures. I can agree with that, but the blanket ban on Muslims from these countries is wrong and bad for America and bad for business. He has had 5 months to get to work on better vetting. Where are those results? Then he can skip his Muslim ban entirely. We want security, not discrimination!
Chris (Colorado)
The Trump presidency is going as I predicted. One hearing after another. The media should feel culpable. Obama had blocked foreigners before too, but the full weight of the media wasn't holding him accountable. So, we could have easily had this debate 3, 4 years ago. The hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking.
Sequel (Boston)
Trump's Travel Ban will always remain a Muslim Ban, thanks to his compulsion to tweet and to speak his mind so forthrightly. And his true believers sincerely approve of his motivation and his speech.

On the other side, Democrats have offered no solutions to the problem of Muslim terrorism. The existence of a federal statute prohibiting immigration discrimination on the basis of religion is a good legal objection, but it doesn't excuse them of their responsibility for addressing the actual problem.
lechrist (Southern California)
Now that the Republicans stole the open Supreme Court seat and we have a nonsensical case of overlapping Executive Orders, we'll get a glimpse of the future direction of our country.
Jj (Holmdel nj)
The interesting thing is that SCOTUS threw the lower courts' ridiculous, precedent-ignoring rulings right out the window.
The Sun Shines South (Atlanta)
Boom! The rule of law is restored. 9th Circuit wrong AGAIN. But still not tired of all this WINNING....
Walker (New York)
Another big win for the Trumpster, another big loss for America.
Robert Roth (NYC)
Since the hatred that fuels Trump and his hideous band won't be moot by October, it is highly unlikely they will work anything out. This is just an opening salvo to see how much misery they can get away with creating. Given permission to do this, they will just keep trying to expand the scope of the type of hurt they get off on inflicting on people who are no way any threat. Except of course in the beauty of their humanity which is in fact a real threat to everything these power driven thugs stand for.
Amy W. (Oregon)
The president has had 5 months to write stonger vetting rules. If it's vital to national security, why hasn't he been working on it?
Gary (Florida)
Let's face reality, this Muslim travel ban (per DJT) is NOT about national security, immigration, or terrorism. If it were, Saudi Arabia would've been on the list.

No, this is about inciting the less educated base with the rhetoric of prejudice while humming God bless America.

DJT and the two major political parties have abandoned the very principles that founded our great nation. Selfish, egotistical greed with party over country is decimating the fabric of our government. They are easy to recognize, they are the one pointing their finger at the other.
Tyrone (NYC)
Not exactly a surprise that SCOTUS lifted the part of the ban they did. Foreigners simply do not have a constitutional right to be in this country.
Vivian Vera (Quito, Ecuador)
GREAT, common sense decision that leads one to guess that the future decision will favor the Executive Branch as it should to prevent the liberal lower courts on the West Coast and Hawaii from usurping the power of the President we elected.
Don (USA)
If we we had a terrorist attack by individuals who fit the profile of most terrorists the same people would be blaming Trump for not protecting them

Why isn't it racism when the FBI and other law enforcement agencies profile criminals and terrorists?
Midwest Guy (Milwaukee, WI)
It seems like the main objective of the travel ban is prevent these Middle Eastern Citizens from coming to the United States and disclose the truth about the genocide that is occurring in those countries. A genocide that would shed light on the true perpetrators.
Scott K (Atlanta)
Why am I not surprised. The non-free speech and the hypocritically politically correct party (aka Democratic Party) and MSM is dealt another set-back which only re-enforces the laws of this great country. If you want to break laws and jam your ideas through unconstitutionally, eventually you will be defeated. The same goes for Trump, and the NYT. Thank goodness we have a Supreme Court that can see beyond partisan politics and the main stream media.
IHanlon (NY, NY)
Unfortunately the SC is becoming as ideologically partisan as the citizenry. I have to believe that ultimately good will triumph.
oogada (Boogada)
"Thank goodness we have a Supreme Court that can see beyond partisan politics and the main stream media."

Let's just bankroll that statement for future reference regarding the Conservative view of the Supremes.
JTS (Syracuse, NY)
Gorsuch dissented, and voted in dissent with Thomas and Alito. That's all you need to know.
fly (Phoenix AZ)
Thank you President Trump, you are the President we have long waited for.
We love you President Trump...7.5 more years!
Lindsay K (Westchester County, NY)
The president you've long waited for maybe, but not the president that the middle class, the poor, the sick, the elderly, women, LGBTQ people, men and women of color, immigrants, environmental groups, people of conscience, and anyone who values religious tolerance, education, science, international diplomacy, and intelligent thought have long waited for.

Seven and a half more years? You don't know what you're asking and I hope, for your sake and the sake of all our fellow citizens, that you don't get it. Four years of this intellectual and moral bankruptcy will be more than enough for this nation.
Tom Carberry (Denver)
Theater, like everything we see. Shakespeare told us 500 years ago the masters produce and write the scripts for the world stage. Orwell and Huxley told us this century. A major false flag will aggrandize this case to historic proportions, so I expect it to happen. Probably on the west coast where the "evil" 9th circuit rules. A fake Korean attack on Seattle would show result in impeachment of the entire 9th Circuit. Of course such a thing would never happen because super smart Machiavellian people who decide to become presidents and senators never think ahead or do anything underhanded.
Rob (New York City)
alito, gorsuch, & thomas are all on the court to serve the federalist society
Iver Thompson (Pasadena, Ca)
The wounds continue to fester, the civil war draws on as we ascend to our pinnacle we call civilization.
Jeremy Hiebert (Winnipeg)
Who would have thought that New Yorkers could have such a negative opinion on this ban, having been the ones who endured the 9/11 attacks. Did you forget the terror of that day so quickly? Would you enjoy having another 9/11 visited upon your city? Shrug off the liberal blinders and learn from history.
IHanlon (NY, NY)
New Yorkers live and work among people who come from all parts of the world and of every color and are not as easily frightened as people who live in lily white communities. People of all stripes can be good or evil. The first thing despots do when in power is attack liberals and point to minorities as the cause of all problems.
dutchiris (Berkeley, CA)
The exclusion of Saudi Arabia from the travel ban despite the 911 terrorists' ties to Saudi Arabia tells us all we need to know: The ban was a crude attempt to fulfill a racist campaign promise. Trump and his family have too many personal business dealings with the Saudis to risk offending them. Because the ban clearly pandered to the racist elements in his political base and was not an unbiased assessment of what would protect the country from terrorism, the Supreme Court should honor the lower courts' findings. The SC should not be hearing the case at all.
Rufus W. (Nashville)
And if only Yemen were able to buy millions in military hardware from the US - they no doubt - would not be on the list....
Jimmy (Rutherford, NJ)
Reversed in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1.
felixmk (ottawa, on)
Now if those countries had Trump hotels or golf courses.....
allen blaine (oklahoma)
Jimmy carter placed a total ban on Muslims from Iran in 1979 and no one said a word. Why is that? Teddy Roosevelt placed a total ban on ALL Muslims from anywhere in the world because of their barbaric cultures. The only reason for this hate is because it is Trump. Obama also placed a ban on travel from the same countries and got a pass from the press.
Mel Farrell (NY)
If we had left the people in those six nations, and others, alone, to devise their own destiny, and control their own markets, just as we are are left alone to pursue our destiny, I believe terrorist acts would be as rare as hens teeth.

Essentially during the last 50 years, we, the United States of America, we have invaded, raped, and pillaged our way through the Middle East, fomenting division along religious, ethnic, and economic lines, working with ruling families in these nations, to subjugate, and reduce to economic slavery and near penury, the people in these sovereign nations.

We have stolen, and continue to steal their natural resources, openly, along with the aid of their despotic rulers, and when resistance to our hellish acts occur, we seed the resistance with wolves in sheeps clothing, wolves acting on behalf of the United States, co-opted to maintain the status quo, and fool the people into believing it will be different, this time.

Yes indeed, we have remade the Middle East into a witches cauldron, which has been getting ready to boil over, and boil over it will, also part of our plan, placing us in the vanguard of some nefarious alliance, which with bombs and bullets will impose some final solution in that part of the world, a solution designed to allow the United States unfettered and unchallenged rule over these nations.
Vickie Hodge (Wisconsin)
I seriously doubt the "administration" will take SCOTUS' suggestion to use the summer to review the processes which they said needed scrutiny. They could have been working on that all during these lower court challenges. They did not because Trump wants to ban Muslims from coming into this country. Period! The travel ban was intended to be the beginning, not the entirety. Trump would have endlessly renewed it. "Who knew immigration/refugee vetting was so complicated?"
It was NEVER about safety or processes. It was about having his way & banning Muslims. Were it truly about terrorists, Saudi Arabian would have have been the FIRST country on the list!!!

But, true to form, the Donald is attracted to the Saudi's because of their "iron fist" way of ruling. Just like what attracts him to his buddy Vlad.

He thinks we are all so stupid that we cannot see how obvious he is being or that he lies. All through the campaign he called Clinton "Crooked Hillary," complained about the Clinton Foundation. Look who has a lawsuit against him for breaking the Emoluments clause and whose foundation spent money illegally!
He literally flaunted his collusion with Russia when he asked them to hack her emails. He thought we couldn't make the connection. OK. His base couldn't. His grandiose opinion of himself has cornered him.
rudolf (new york)
No US woman should do any work in these countries - be it military, business, USAID, NGOs. There will be many charmers from these countries loaded with big promises - same issue has become a massive problem already with illegal Mexicans.
Nancy Bilderbeck (London, England)
PERFECT! This is the start of something bigger than we can imagine. I would encourage all people from all the countries of the world to not visit the USA. A boycott of all travel to the USA, with its attached money, would show this government where the threat really lies ... no further away than Washington.
srsnj (USA)
So in a sense you must have a member of the USA family to get accepted into the club. Cowardly decision. Not having Saudi Arabia, the most terror entity sanctuary, is given arms and oil money but the training camps and recruitment are tuned a blind eye. such an awful decision.
Laurence Voss (Valley Cottage, N.Y.)
Now comes the true Trump message : Make America Hate Again.
RT (Louisville)
The obvious backstory to the ban is the sustained effort that sections of the political establishment in the US (primarily the GOP) and elsewhere have engaged in to fabricate a false dynamic - radical Islam versus the "West".

The more extreme among them (Steve Bannon) have made this a phony "clash of civilizations" struggle between radical Islam and the "Christian West" - as if this was an age-old conflict going back to the Crusades and before.

This effort has nothing to do with security. It's all part of the diversion designed to convince the uneducated and gullible that their enemy is a historic "other" and that tax cuts for the rich and the savaging of social services for the rest of society is part of making America "great again".

Are there reactionary and even fascistic tendencies that declare themselves to be Muslim and claim to speak on behalf of the entirety of Islam. Yes. Just as Hitler claimed to be "the voice of the German Nation". Was there ever even such a thing as the "German Nation"? Not really.

There is equally no such thing as a monolithic "Islam" or even "Radical Islam". In the case of the later there are only reactionary (frequently sociopathic) individuals and small groups pursuing self-serving ends that claim an identity as Muslims. Just as the Nazi's pretended to "speak for the German Nation".

Tarring an entire group with the crimes of a minority is the age-old trick of demagogues and nothing more. Shame on the SC if it goes along with this.
Pillai (St.Louis, MO)
Does the Supremes need a calculator? Trump said he needs a 90 day ban from Jan 20th because of some threat.

What's the point of the ban, limited or otherwise, after 150 days?
Senate27 (Washington, DC)
Oh, it is going to be permanent, now.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
The lower courts enjoined the administration from conducting the review of the vetting processes
Cindy (San Diego, CA)
And now we know that all levels of the federal government are now corrupt.
Kathyinct (Fairfield County)

Thank God.

I feel so much safer.

And disgusted.
MM (New York)
Too bad.
Digger (Ny)
For Sale: Large bronze statue. Height: 111 feet, six inches; Weight: 225 tons. Imported from France. Comes with seven decorative rays representing each of the continents. Nice patina. You move. Note: Broken chains of Oppression and Tyranny at bottom are now intact. Base included. Have moved on, no longer needed
Elizabeth Guss (NM, USA)
So much for the words of Emma Lazarus, who wrote in last lines of her poem "The New Colossus" (1883), the immortal words engraved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty :

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Jack (McGhee)
I think maybe we can't really make a better world by just prompting everybody else to play nice with us, and instead we might have to start playing a tougher game.

I was left-wing for my entire life, but lately I'm saddened by what I read about how much non-whites are moving to and becoming the majority in white countries. If you notice the demographics, it looks like during this century we're going to witness the demise of the white race, and I think that's a bad thing. I think we were getting over-concerned about stuff that happened in the past. I think the other nations and races aren't totally understanding the concessions we gave them and our attempt to share the world with them and become their friends. Or it seems like they don't believe in it, or they're on the verge of changing their minds about it. It seems like we helped them out with these concessions, instead of trying to go the Nazi/KKK way. And what's going to happen is that the other races are going to use what they gained to take over and to start pushing us around instead of reciprocating, and learning to be our friends and understand us.

And what's accompanying all this? Horrendous terrorism that we're not managing to stop, but instead we're actually busying ourselves thinking up rationales for it and trying to give Muslims and terrorist suspects as much freedom as possible. That's symptomatic, I think.
William Case (Texas)
Most residents of the six countries affected by the travel ban are white. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States was 77.1 percent white in 2015, up from 72.4 percent in 2010. The reason is that most immigrants are Hispanics and most Hispanic immigrants are white.
Elizabeth Guss (NM, USA)
The color of one's skin does not denote the worth of a person. If you honestly believe that lily white skin denotes something wonderful in these United States, you are mistaken. The colonialism that Europeans imposed upon the indigenous cultures of the Americas resulted in pestilential epidemic deaths on an epic scale - worse even than the Black Death of 14th century Europe. The Spaniards and the English (primarily) practiced nothing short of genocide in the 15th to 18th centuries, and the nascent US picked up where they left off. By the way, those indigenous people were NOT white. Whites STOLE their continent.

Your perception that all Muslims are Middle Eastern is entirely inaccurate as well. Islam is one of the world's largest faiths, with 1.8 billion adherents, or 24% of the global population. By 2070, Islam will be the dominant global faith, according to the Pew Research Center:

The US has not exactly done well at sharing the world, and the current administration has been extremely vocal in its determination that it will not be sharing anything with anyone who isn't "American" (a misnomer for a US citizen). The GOP's policy of raging through the planet waging wars, both military and economic, on the world's peoples for years, the fact the some have "radicalized" should not be surprising to anyone in power.
Marvinsky (New York)
The USA is white only because Europeans and others "immigrated' here w/o any invitation or required visa beginning in the 15th century, taking over (to it mildly). You can get a mini-view of the this process in Israel -- white Europeans taking over as much of Palestine as they can get their gun-laden hands on. They came w/o visas, etc.
Al (NYC)
et tu, scotus?
Andrew (Louisville)
I can't wait for the triumphalist tweet. I predict something like 'Vindicated!!!!'
Alice's Restaurant (PB San Diego)
An end to Northern California Ninth Circuit cultural-Marxist stomping on the constitution?
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
That will come sooner than later. The Ninth is too large; it will be broken into several parts...
duh (nyc)
The ninety days days have come and gone. I thought they needed that time to improve their vetting procedures. Why do they still need the ban? Obviously trump is not interested in changing vetting. This is a show piece to prove he can get away with his fascist agenda.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
The ninety days days have come and gone. I thought they needed that time to improve their vetting procedures


The lower court rulings enjoined the administration from reviewing the vetting procedures
akin caldiran (lansing/michigan)
this is for Muslim ban and Supreme Court is going to say if you are not white or Christian , you are not well come to USA , is this our country wants it and l think they do , it is sad sad times for immigrant but my friend do not forget, this is how Mr.Trump won, and polls says if he runs today again he will win so it is what it is
Jam77 (New York Ciry)
Once Trump gets a few more comservatives on the Supreme Court, this whole thing needs to be revisited. We need to protect ourselves from the Creeping insidious attempt by radical Islamic terrorists to infiltrate our society. We are war, and anyone who doesn't believe so is naive. If these people who don't believe this is a holy war had anyone they loved killed by a radical Islamic terrorist, they would understand
sakd (USA)
That sounds great. We should be clear, though. Let's amend the Constitution to allow discrimination against Muslims. We don't really need freedom of religion in this country. We just need freedom of religion for the religions we the people approve of. Right?
Robert (SoCal)
The stolen seat, occupied by Neil Gorsuch, is already paying dividends for the Republicans.
Thinking, thinking... (Minneapolis)
If it walks like a duck...
HillBillary (Illinois)
Will be interesting to see how the Soros lemmings react to this. I guess Barry Sotero was right, elections have consequences.
akin caldiran (lansing/michigan)
how sad it is, how can we judge a human been his/her skin color or religion , what is the difference of this law and the 1936 Nazi Germany's make Jews ware star of David and jewish stores put to their windows the same thing, l do not see any difference
atb (Chicago)
PLEASE show some backbone and knock this thing down. I'm so tired of this toddler tyrant and his wasting of our resources. We're paying for all of his trips to Florida and the court time for all of this. He needs to be impeached, yesterday.
Mike (NYC)
People need to get this through their heads. Foreigners with no connection to the US on foreign soil have zero Constitutional rights. The President can do what he wants about letting them in in his sole discretion.
Marvinsky (New York)
Surprise! Neil Gorsuch lands in the Thomas/Alito clutch. Probably the least free 'justice' of any in the Magnificently Bought Five.

We can probably survive Trump with a little luck -- but the Mag Five? or Mag Six coming soon ... no such luck exists.
William Case (Texas)
The ruling was unanimous.
MichaelW (Richmond Hill ON)
That this is all a Trumpian ruse is clearly evident from the fact that he has ALREADY had more than the 90 days asked for in the original EO (ban) to study how to better vet refugees and travelers, yet has seemingly done nothing ion the interim, despite claiming this was a measure of utmost national security. Baloney! If the situation for national security was so urgent, why is he waiting for the EO to be upheld? Why do we think that the incompetent administration will be any further ahead in 90 days from now. They won't and this will happen all over again.
JSD (Olympic Valley USA)
Really sad that our fundamentalist "Christian" Supreme Court is handing Putin's useful idiot the ban Trump, ISIS and Al Queda have been craving. The war between religions/civilizations is officially on ... Christian's vs Muslims, us vs. them, rich vs. poor ...
Richard (Austin, Texas)
One thing that has been firmly established by these recent rulings on the immigration religious ban, gun rights and same sex rights is that Neil Gorsuch is getting an early start in proving that he is Trump's rubber stamp lapdog in an increasingly hard-right tilt on the Star Chamber U.S. Supreme Court.
Emmanuel Goldstein (Oceania)
Didn't take long for Gorsuch to show his true colors.
Looks like he, Thomas, and Alito will henceforth constitute a reactionary bloc. Let's all pray that every other justice stays healthy until at least January 20, 2021!
JGrondelski (PERTH AMBOY, NJ)
Sounds like the expansive notion of "standing" pushed by certain attorneys general and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was not left standing .... Hopefully, we will also come to the conclusion that the President has latitude to regulate immigration and what counts is the order, not litigants' forays into psychobabble.
atozdbf (Bronx)
Meanwhile our "Supreme" Court plays Solomon and decides to cut the baby in half. While Trumpolini decides what he can, might, should do next.

Gimmee a break!
Robert Roth (NYC)
Already having signed off on two executions Neil Gorsuch keeps earning his keep.

"I fear the court's remedy will prove unworkable," a frustrated Clarence Thomas proclaims. How I hope he is right.
Emily (New York, NY)
Our country is slipping down a very steep slope towards fascist dictatorship! Our elected officials, courts, etc won't save us! We need to get out onto the streets and demand that our CONSTITUTION BE UPHELD!!!!!! Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves!
BearBoy (St Paul, MN)
Home run for America and common sense security. Bad day for kooky open border liberals, and Islamic terrorists.
Getreal (Colorado)
With Trump's crony, the thief Gorsuch, on the court, it may have become as illegitimate as he.
With several vampires in that barrel, their fangs ready for the neck of America, will we remain a free country? Remember,.. Trump is acting as the president, yet we did not elect him. republicans in the electoral college appointed him, against our Will.
As with the crook Nixon, long after he was forced out of power in disgrace, the justices he placed on the court continued to do his work.
Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch do not belong on the Supreme Court: one is a sexual aggressor who would be fired in any present-day corporation, and the other is an opportunist who stole someone else's seat. That they think themselves worthy of judging everybody else in this land is laughable. Shame on both of them.
Robert (St Louis)
Trump will appoint two more Supreme Court justices before he is through. The court will be conservative for many years to come. Liberals will display the usual snowflake weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
Carbazole (New Jersey)
How did Roberts Vite?
Mose vasco (<br/>)
New Rule. If more than 60% of a circuits decisions in a three year period are overturned by the Supreme Court the Department of Justice may replace all Judges who serve in that circuit for their inability to follow and apply the law or just do not understand it. No more polltical activism allowed. drain the swamp.
paula joyce (Oakland, CA)
Gorsuch dissented on the partial lift of the ban, in favor of a full one. He dissented with, no surprise, Thomas and Alito. Sorry, but I fear that anyone who thinks the SC will rule against the Orange Menace on this one is kidding themselves. And the news last night said that Kennedy is thinking more loudly of retiring....goddess help us.
Andrew Macdonald (Alexandria, VA)
Clear to see already why Gorsuch was opposed by so many groups.
Brad (Okinawa)
In the 1st place, the 6 countries listed have little to no vetting procedures in place for their own citizens. In other words, you are who you say you are in most cases. No biometrics, no birth certificates, no finger prints, and with their non existent borders in most cases, no idea if the people living in their country are even citizens of that country. Documents are easily bought/forged, and the bad guys know this. They were using these countries as way stations to get elsewhere to do their work. Saudi Arabia, as odious as its government is, has the infrastructure in place to correctly identify people.

Last, but not least, the Executives power to do this has already been upheld by SCOTUS. Kleindienst v. Mandel (Sup. Ct, 1972) & Fiallo v. Bell (Sup Ct, 1977), are going to end up being the guiding decisions. As to why the 9th, and 4th ignored these decisions, I'll leave that to the pundits.
Phyliss Dalmatian (Wichita, Kansas)
Thomas- the Ben Carson of the Supremes. Bigly.
Bill Evans (Rapid City, SD)
This Russians have been more successful than even the horrible Putin could ever have hoped for. By rigging Trump as our "idiot in chief", they have manage to ruin the Supreme Court for a generation, destroying our freedom, and tainting our trust in the law of the land.
Nice work have ruined your own life and your children's as well.
Izabourne Greene (SanFransicko CA)
Everyone is talking about Kennedy retiring, what about Looney Tune Ginsburg. She constantly attacked Trump ignoring the separation of powers, while showing contempt for our election process. The lunatic also was said she would leave the country if Trump were elected. Yet not a word about her fitness for office while the same hypocrites demand Trump'sImpeachment.
norina1047 (Brooklyn, NY)
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of support from a lopsided conservative court. BTW, if “As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” Mr. Trump said. then why in hell did he allow Russians in the Oval Office in secret meetings, not allow our press to be in attendance, does not have regular press conferences, and has myriads of Russian allies that are certainly proving to do us harm?
Ahmad (DC)
Looks like our own slippery slope towards a theocracy just got slipperier and a heck of lot more vertical. I am guessing that after the eventual ruling and the 90 days study to figure out what the hell is going on the list of the offending countries might just grow from 6 to 12 just in time for midterm elections.
mr. mxyzptlk (new jersey)
Needless to say the 90 and 120 day limits have passed. Does anyone think that THIS administration was doing anything productive about what they asked the delay for during this period. Unless I miss my guess they were twiddling their thumbs waiting for this ruling. Donald Trump is an abscess on our Republic.
rixax (Toronto)
Let the bragging begin.
Ben (Cincinnati)
Once they successfully "ban" one group, they will go after others.

Ego empowered is never sated until it is destroyed.
ed (honolulu)
The libs should have gone with their first instinct and left for New Zealand because all the branches of government will ultimately vindicate the powers of the President to act in the interest of national security. Unable to accept the results of the election, the Dems tried everything they had--Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, etc. It's just a losing game. America now waits to see what their message will be. Will it be more sleight of hand and evasion of the issues, or will they finally get down to work for the average American voter?
Carol Mello (California)
When a judge or attorney is elevated to the supreme court, they may initially feel beholden to the political party which appointed them. However, in the long term, they are not there to be a rubber stamp for whoever appointed them. They are there to guard the country, its citizens, and the US Constitution against executive and legislative overeach. That is their real job.

They also have their long term legacy to consider too. So those who complain about what supreme court judges after do after having being appointed for years (Kennedy) should realize that the SCOTUS judge job is very different than what you seem to think it is.

I am trusting SCOTUS (including the newest one) to do what they Constitutionally are supposed to do and not what Joe Farmer in flyover country nor Joe Blow in urban areas want politically here and now.

Why wasn't the lack of action by Congress on Garland ever taken as a case to SCOTUS? It seemed a blatant case of Congressional overreach to me.

Trump better watch his step. This SCOTUS is going to nitpick his careless actions. He should not gloat. This was a statement that he should stop doing a sloppy job.
Eric Key (Jenkintown PA)
It appears that at the point they have opted to cut the baby in half.
Lauren B. (Houston)
I am appalled and disheartened that SCOTUS has permitted a partial stay on the Travel Ban. As an American who has lived abroad, I cannot help but wonder how this will further dismantle our relationships with our allies whilst fueling the ideologies of our enemies.

To maintain America's perception as the "Shining City on a Hill", as first described by John Winthrop in the mid 17th century, we must perpetuate the core principles of a just and humane society: charity, affection, understanding and unity. These are the ingredients to making any country truly great.

Simply put, the current Administration seems to be singlehandedly undermining this important aspect of American Exceptionalism. Moreover (and to my great surprise) it seems that SCOTUS is not convinced that this is a First Amendment violation... despite Trump's obvious anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail.

If there were ever a time to question the values of our government and the resiliency of our democracy, this would be it. I fear this may be our canary in the coal mine as our country veers closer to authoritarianism, xenophobia, and ultimately isolationism.
99percent (downtown)
"I cannot help but wonder how this will further dismantle our relationships with our allies whilst fueling the ideologies of our enemies."

You have it exactly backwards.
vr (new york)
99percent- no, she does not have it backwards. She is absolutely right that "this will fuel the ideologies of our enemies."
Coffee Bean (Java)

While you articulate some cogent points, our allies in Europe are feeling the effects of their initial "ideological blind eye" with an open door migration policy. With the recent spate of terrorist attacks on Great Brittan, France and elsewhere in Europe, further alienating our enemies is akin to tossing several books of matches into a fire.

The U.S. can/most certainly will send aid to help our allies while attempting to assure the safety of the citizens he was elected to govern and protect from ALL enemies domestic and abroad.
TMK (New York, NY)
This is huuuugggeee!!! Remember, the courts in 2015 affirmed, via deadlock, an appeals court ruling, that, among other things, found Obama had violated executive authority. In this case, not the only have they given Trump a wink-nod validation of his order, but they've also signaled they're two short to keep the 9th circuit fully in check. A timely reminder, not just to the president, but also to Justice Ginsburg and swinging Justice Kennedy before they leave for their three month break, to ponder on the question they've surely thought about prior: "Must I go back?". Yes!
Boris Vetrov (Seattle)
All you kind hypocrites! Take them to your neighborhoods, place their children in your schools, let them built their mosques and then see your neighborhoods destroyed. Look at Europe!!!!
Marko (USA)
With Gorsuch on board, the Supreme Court once again demonstrates that it is the most radical and politicized court in the land, wholly out-of-step with the other appellate courts and an agitating influence.
Ed B (San Francisco)
So much for any mystery about where Gorsuch stands. Along with Alito and Thomas, he dissents and "would have revived the travel ban in its entirety while the court considered the case."
Coffee Bean (Java)
“The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid’ the executive order, Justice Thomas wrote, quoting from the majority opinion.
This will, in effect, give access to an already overburdened justice system to those who oppose the measure a veritable convenience store ATM access for their attorney to file a potentially meritless lawsuit.
Mr. Reeee (NYC)
An article about a Travel Ban involving SIX different countries and there's NO LIST of them in the article?

REALLY? Seriously?
NY Times, you're slipping…
vr (new york)
I suppose they assume people reading this will have read the hundreds of previous articles written about the ban over the past several months...
Aleister (Florida)
Although this is far from being a final decision, looks like the SCOTUS is taking the Solomonian solution, here which makes sense legally. Apply the law, not politics, on any immigration decision by the POTUS. It has been long held by the federal courts that the Executive retains plenary authority on excluding non-U.S. persons. It is high time for those Americans that still feel the sting of last November to get over it and get back to pushing America forward, together. Good job SCOTUS. Another victory for our 240-year-old Constitution.
TPierre Changstien (bk,nyc)
The idea that any court would give more weight to the words said by a candidate on the campaign trail than the text of the order as issued by the legally constituted government is fairly outrageous. This is a limitless principle that could be abused in myriad ways by courts seeking to usurp executive and legislative power, which is exactly what happened here.

The other outrage of these lower court rulings was giving standing to sue to people who weren't even affected by the ruling. Basically the courts held that anyone who felt hurt by the order could challenge it in court. This is absurd, and again, a virtually limitless principle.

The various courts who have issued these shameful rulings have abdicated their roles as arbiters of the law in favor of joining the laughably styled "resistance". They have become political operators, further damaging the separation of powers and rule of law, all so they could throw a juvenile temper tantrum to virtue signal that they are part of of "resistance"

Hopefully SCOTUS will firmly slap some sense into these lunatic lower courts.
Casey (Memphis,TN)
SCOTUS = Stupid Court of the United States
Michael (Houston)
That's not what you were saying the last two years.
Timothy Cunningham (Philadelphia)
How much erosion of the principles that maintain a free and fair society can we stand? All because morons from the southern and rural wilderness wanted to "shake things up" and got away with it because of the electoral college nonsense. And the liberal talking heads say we have to relate to their concerns! Why? It will just slow us down even more. It's time to consider a "two-state solution", so at least half the country can get their roads fixed, quality health care for all, and a fair taxation policy.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
"I am terrified they may ultimately rule in favor of Trump."

Keep in mind that Supreme Court rulings usually outlast Presidents.

If the SC rules against Trump -- on an EO that plainly is authorized, violates no Constitutional prohibition on its face and has never actually been applied -- it will be ruling that courts have authority to second-guess Presidents based merely on a prediction that the executive branch WILL act in a discriminatory manner based on things the President has said or done in the past.

Even to get that far, of course, the SC will need to have determined that some Constitutional provisions "trump" others (here, that the First Amendment prohibition against religious discrimination "trumps" the Constitution's grant to the executive branch of exclusive authority over immigration). I can get that far, and I'm confident most Americans agree.

But that gets the SC only half-way. It still will need to decide whether a First-Amendment "trumping" has in fact occurred when the EO in question is not unconstitutional on its face and has never actually been applied, but predictably WILL (or at least MIGHT) be applied in a discriminatory manner if one considers other things the President has said or done in the past.

If that happens, and some Trump-appointed judge in, say, Idaho, enjoins a future Democratic President and declares that his or her injunction has nationwide applicability, will you think (as Martha Stewart used to say) that that is a "good thing?"
ralphie (CT)
excellent comment -- however, progressives don't understand precedent. They operate on the emotion of the moment.
oogada (Boogada)

You're doing the thing you're using to try to frighten people:

You're warning against a decision against Trump based on the fear of what might happen in the future.

And, yes, the Supreme Court or any court has the right to consider what a person says specifically regarding the matter under consideration.

If Trump said, "I meant to kill Xman", it would be no defense for his lawyer to say "He didn't mean that. Hey, he's Trump. That guy will say anything."

If Xman is dead, the statement will be permissible.

When Trump says, "I meant to keep those Muslims out, because they're Muslims", that statement is admissible.

So is the question "Why, if safety is The President's overriding concern, is the only nation explicitly exempt from these Orders also the only nation that has sent terrorists to America?""
Tom (Bethlehem, PA)
Trump will claim this is a victory. Not because it is one, particularly, but because he doesn't care about the Minutiae of policy - he just cares about "winning": getting a "victory" at any cost. It's why he's supporting the "mean" GOP Healthcare bill; not because he believes in the policy, but because it notches up a "win" for him.

He has no interest it policy, it's affects, the American people or anything but massaging his own fragile ego.
Pamela (Vermont)
Mr. Trump needs to realize that his supporters were in the losing minority on this, not the winning majority. He has been restricted to the barest legal features of the "ban," with no resolution on its constitutionality. of course, he claims victory when the sun rises, so no hope of realism in his statements.
Tired of Hypocrisy (USA)
Pamela - please read how the United States elects presidents. This president was elected by the MAJORITY of electoral votes, and that is the only majority that counts. This absolutely ridiculous insistence on counting popular votes promulgated by the Democratic Party and its sycophants leads to a legal dead end.
Tyrone Greene (Rockland)
The executive order that limited travel from six Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, and suspended the nation's refugee program for 120 days, is moot. Or soon will be.

The order took effect on March 16, 2017. One of the order's temporary suspensions has recently expired. The other will expire shortly. Indeed, 7 months will have passed before the Supreme Court hears arguments. By then, the order will long have expired. The "temporary pause" for scrutinizing existing screening and vetting procedures will be over.

So it's a purely academic matter. The Supreme Court can decide the extent to which a president's uttered motivations should be used to interpret the written word, or conversely, the extent to which the written word can be viewed as a pretext. But it's a bit surprising the Supreme Court would agree to hear arguments on a moot point, to resolve an issue that, strictly speaking, no longer presents itself.
Ami (Portland Oregon)
We must remember that we are a nation of laws. We may not like or even agree with the ruling but we must accept it. The supreme court is going to hear the case so for now we're just going to have to be patient. At least green card holders and visa holders won't be impacted as this is being sorted out.
Sharon (Chicago, IL)
Green card holders are routinely harassed by Customs at the airport. Dozens of holders of valid visas from every continent are denied entry to the US and put on return flights every day.

Customs holds the power of god over visa holders entering the US. They are not at all fair or transparent in who gets in and who doesn't.

Thousands of travelers have been harassed by Customs since this first travel ban. I am shocked anyone still wants to visit the US.
jason (Texas)
The left doesn't understand what a nation of laws is. Only when is suits them.
James (Pittsburgh)
Strikes me that this ruling is not a partial victory for Trump but rather total victory. The executive order is for 90 to 120 days and by the time the Court returns to address the merits of the executive order it will have expired. Presumably the Court will consider the case moot and Trump will have gotten everything his Executive order mandated.
Whether you are for or against the contents of the executive order it really does not matter.
Don Shipp, (Homestead Florida)
Implicit in the unusual dissents of a per curium opinion by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, in the Trump case, means that the three justices are simply ignoring Trumps stated intent to invoke a "ban". Their disingenuous partisanship is an ominous foreshadowing.
Inkblot (Western Nass)
It's really sad that we have to look at a "win for Trump" as a loss for America's values and standards. But that's where we are.

Trump asked for 90 days to study the problem. That is what the EO was about: 90 days of immigration cessation, as an emergency measure, to give the appropriate federal agencies time to figure out how to address the problem. Well, they've had 150 days to figure out how to solve the probem. Why now do they still need another 90 days to do what should have been accomplished? What happened to Trump's boast of always finishing projects ahead of schedule and under budget?
gang zhou, esq. (New York City)
Finally, by the partial grant by the Supreme Court of "the government's applications to stay the injunctions [by the two lower courts], to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Mr. Trump's executive order" as to those who "lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States", at least some of the merits of President Trump's executive orders for the 90-day travel ban and the 120-day freeze of visa approval processes appear to have convinced at least some of the brilliant minds at the Supreme Court.
VisaVixen (Florida)
I wonder if Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito so hate the Constitution they will knee-jerk grant "T!" unlimited power as he has demanded in these botched travel ban executive orders.
Defiant (NYS)
This underscores the absolute degree to which the ultra-Liberal appeals courts have been playing politics--busy with activism when they should be upholding this perfectly legal immigration ban. These circuit courts are as corrupt as the Democrat party...and that's PRETTY crooked!
Dr. M (Nola)
Gorush dissents because the court only allowed part of the ban to be active (he felt the entire thing should be restored). Which shows you what he will do. Let's hope the politicized lower courts learn their lesson from this.
H. A. Sappho (Los Angeles)
The Roberts’ Court Plessy v Ferguson moment has arrived, and it already looks like they are going to fail it. If they do, they will be just as damned in history as the 1896 court.

All those who voted for a malicious cartoon for president will share in that guilt.

Elections very much have consequences.
Maria Ashot (EU)
This is an ominous decision. Please remember that along with the curtailing of rights for "some" Muslims from "some" countries came a whole lot of other sweeping abuses and overreach by misguided officials. They were detaining folks right and left, confiscating phones & in some cases causing physical bodily harm. Children were traumatized. Vulnerable seniors and disabled people were denied due process. This unfortunate result today should be a clarion call to everyone out there to snap out of their state of complacency and get busy defending basic rights most 21st century citizens of developed societies take completely for granted, as a matter of course.
Rita (California)
So maybe parts of the revised Executive order might just be Constitutional.

How much time and taxpayer money has been wasted because Trump and his advisors couldn't be bothered to consult with knowledgeable and experienced staff.

"Well begun, is half done."

"Poor concept, poor planning and poor execution" is Trump's motto.
Technic Ally (Toronto)
I guess Gorsuch did take the Loyalty Oath.
JL (Durham, NC)
And Ginsburg, too???
Thomas Carlstrom (Bonita Springs, Florida)
Technic: And also Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Wonder why?
OldEngineer (SE Michigan)
Bader-Ginzburg concurred. Your point?
Al Singer (Upstate NY)
I fully understand the deference to presidential powers in areas of national security. But when a president fresh from a campaign promising to" ban muslims from the country so we can figure what the hell is going on," we need the Courts to be a check and balance on abuses of authority and to stop religious discrimination and actions with absolutely no rational basis.
Slow fuse (oakland calif)
The president has a right and a duty to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. We elected him. He is our president We can change that next election All of the above is stating the obvious. The man is an ass at best,but sadly he is our ass. This ban is only a small distraction from the more outrageous which are carried on by his not elected cohort
Maria Ashot (EU)
Except that it is fair to question whether this particular Administration honestly came by its Oval Office access.
Mike (houston)
Trump wins again, A good day for America.
steve (santa cruz, ca.)
Only if you define "America" as being that portion of the population (slightly less than half of the country) that agrees with you. As an American whose roots go back to colonial times, my view is that Trump and his "policies" are a disaster for the USA and the world.
MM (New York)
+steve America's policies for the last 50 years or so have been a disaster for the U.S. and the world. So, your point is?
dennis (ct)
Last time I checked, our country is run by laws, not feelings - just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right

Thank you SC for properly following your mandate.
Matt (NYC)
Looks like the court is crossing its fingers and hoping that they will not need to actually address the MERITS. Standing and mootness are legitimate concerns, but they, do not answer any underlying questions or give any guidance on the "question presented."

What statements and actions rise to the level of "discriminatory intent"? Whether it's in gerrymandering, voter ID laws, immigration policy, national security issues or anything else, how do we prevent leaders from using a legitimate concerns as a cover for abusing disfavored groups? The law already recognizes that FACIAL discrimination written right into the law/order/regulation is to be scrutinized, but it also recognizes that these issues cannot be decided purely on the basis of whether or not someone is foolish enough to actually draft something explicitly designed to harm certain demographics. It is rare that any politician to make such blatant discriminatory statements, but... this is Trump; it's all "unprecedented." This issue does not usually come up, but there's nothing usual about this administration, so how do we deal with the matter? It would be nice to see some analysis from a branch that (whether right or left) is not particularly vulnerable to attack ads, bullying, press clippings, fund raisers or other nonsense.

At the very least, it is plausible that the Justices with life tenure actually have a good faith belief in their words. That's more than many in the other two branches can say.
Jorge (San Diego)
OK, so now we are no longer the Shining City on the Hill, not the beacon of democracy and freedom. Now maybe we can close down a few hundred of our 800 military bases overseas (in 70 countries), stop spending so much on weapons, and take care of our own people. Isn't that what Trump and his supporters were seeking? Is there any positive side to this at all?
Neither a travel ban nor more weapons make me feel any safer at all. When Trump leaves office, only then I will finally sleep better.
don (CT)
Wow,.. its not healthy going 8 years without sleep.
Shawn Foster (Washington)
Taking care of people is for the weak. We're proud patriots who need 700 military bases to prove god intended us to do whatever​.
Jim (Marshfield MA)
Another great day. The good guys have prevailed once again. The safety of the American people is the first responsibility of the US Government, above all else. Trump and the USSC are 100% correct. The countries listed have inaccurate records of who people are, they can't be relied on to give an accurate representation of who wants to come to the US. Isis has admitted they have sent jihadist to Europe to carry out missions, knowing this liberal democrats still want unvetted people to come to the US. It's no wonder why you keep losing elections, 1,000 elected democrats have lost their positions.
srsnj (USA)
So we know for a fact Saudi Arabia harbors and has money sent to these terror groups but we sell them weapons instead of banning entry from their country. Such a cowardly decision.
steve (santa cruz, ca.)
Your assertion that "liberal democrats still want unvetted people to come to the US" is not one that most "liberals" would agree to as accurately characterizing their position. I'm a "liberal" and that sure isn't my stance.
We already have (since long before Trump) some of the most stringent vetting procedures for entry into this country of almost anyone.
As for this particular ban, it's just there for domestic political reasons -- nothing to do with any real threat. In any case, in this country, your chance or mine of dying at the hands of a terrorist (as opposed to a car accident or an illness) is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
George (PA)
You do a great job regurgitating faux news "facts". Saudi Arabia isn't on the list, yet sent us most of the 9/11 hijackers. All under a conservatives watch. Vetting of refugees already takes two years.
William Case (Texas)
The Fourth Circuit court erred by considering the wrong Trump campaign statements. In December 2015, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. But in his fighting terrorism speech on August 15, 2016, Trump said, “clearly, new screening procedures are needed.” His temporary travel ban is not a total and complete shutdown of Muslim entering the United States; it a temporary ban on travel from six countries until new screening procedures can be put in place.
See also