Two weeks ago, the solicitor general filed an emergency plea with the high court urging the justices to bypass two lower courts that were weighing legal challenges to the third version of Trump's travel order, which was issued September 24. The decision of the SC was supported by seven of the nine judges which increase the chances of the administration winning the case on merit as and when it reaches the highest court. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would deny the request but did not spell out their reasons. Further, the government says, courts don't have the authority to review the president's decision to exclude foreigners overseas unless Congress authorizes them to, and Congress has provided no such authorization. It also attracted widespread protests, like this one in NY city. "We are not surprised by today's Supreme Court decision permitting immediate enforcement of the President's proclamation limiting travel from countries presenting heightened risks of terrorism", the White House said.
"This massive victory for American security comes just after President Trump boldly withdrew our country from the UN's risky, irresponsible Global Compact on Migration", it said. Those branded "foreign agents" have to present themselves as such on all paperwork and submit to intensive scrutiny of their staffing and financing.
The Supreme Court order is a significant win for the Trump administration, which has fought all year to impose a travel ban against citizens of several Muslim-majority countries.
Travel ban 3.0 also adds three countries to the president's list, including Venezuela and North Korea, both of which aren't majority-Muslim, in what appears to be a bid to insulate the president from accusations of religious animus.
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said that it was unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now. A federal judge in Seattle soon blocked it, and since then, courts have wrestled with the restrictions anew as the administration has rewritten them.
In a pair of filings in the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco said Mr. Trump had acted under his broad constitutional and statutory authority to control immigration when he issued a new proclamation in September announcing the new travel restrictions. Whatever the judges rule, the president's directive will remain in effect until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Lawyers for Hawaii, one of the challengers to the travel bans, said there was no reason for the Supreme Court to back away from the "equitable determination, dutifully adhered to by the court below", that it had already made.
Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June. "We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down".
"Less than six months ago, this court considered and rejected a stay request indistinguishable from the one the government now presses", they wrote.