Defeated Trump hints at Supreme Court travel ban appeal

On June 1, 2017, the Trump administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to block lower court rulings from Hawaii and Richmond, Virginia, in an effort to revive its suspended travel ban. The administration argued that the restrictions, which targeted six majority-Muslim countries, were necessary to prevent potential terrorist attacks. However, federal courts had repeatedly blocked the executive order, leaving the administration on the losing side of four separate rulings concerning the March version of the ban.

The legal battle centered on whether the executive order exceeded presidential authority and discriminated based on nationality or religion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond decided on May 25 that the administration intended to discriminate against Muslims, while a federal court in Maryland similarly concluded the order unconstitutionally singled out Muslims. In the Hawaii case, the state acted as the principal plaintiff, arguing that the policy lacked a clear connection between nationality and a propensity to commit terrorism. The state’s brief noted the policy could paradoxically bar a Syrian national who had lived in Switzerland for decades while allowing entry to a Swiss national who had recently immigrated to Syria.

While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated portions of an injunction that blocked the government from reviewing its internal vetting procedures, it upheld the suspension of the ban itself. Opponents argued that the proposed 90-day travel restriction was set to expire on the Wednesday of that week, marking 90 days since the revised order’s March 16 effective date. Conversely, the administration argued that the ongoing legal challenges had stopped the clock, meaning the 90-day window should be extended.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated during a press briefing that the administration remained confident the executive order was lawful and would be upheld. The Supreme Court had not yet announced whether it would hear the appeal of the Fourth Circuit’s decision.