Handing the White House a huge judicial victory, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of President Trump’s travel ban affecting residents of six majority-Muslim countries.
The justices said the policy can take full effect despite multiple legal challenges against it that haven’t yet made their way through the court system.
According to Western Journal, the ban applies to those traveling or seeking to immigrate from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The president’s executive order made an exception for those seeking to enter the country with a “bona fide” relationship with people in the United States.
The high court’s order overrules a September decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which more broadly defined what constituted a bona fide relationship.
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) December 4, 2017
Trump DOJ lawyers argued before the 9th Circuit that only those in the immediate nuclear family and in-laws counted as bona fide relationships.
The 9th Circuit ruled that “(s)tated simply, the government does not offer a persuasive explanation for why a mother-in-law is clearly a bona fide relationship, in the Supreme Court’s prior reasoning, but a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew or cousin is not.”
BREAKING: Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban affecting residents of six mostly Muslim countries.
— The Associated Press (@AP) December 4, 2017
In June, the Supreme Court also overruled the 9th and the 4th Circuit’s decisions blocking the implementation of the entire travel ban.
Monday’s order by the Supreme Court does not decide the overall constitutionality of the travel ban, which is still being litigated in lower courts.
However, it does allow the ban to remain in place, until a final disposition is made.
The 9th and the 4th Circuit, will be holding arguments on the legality of the ban this week, according to The Associated Press.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor opposed Monday’s order.
Trump’s lawyers were not satisfied with that partial win in the appeals courts. They filed an emergency appeal on Nov. 20 contending that allowing the ban to go into only partial effect “will cause ongoing irreparable harm to the government and the public.” They predicted the court would eventually uphold the order so the justices should permit the order to go into full effect without further delay.