The opinions make very interesting reading.
Even the majority opinion makes very clear that the proclamation was upheld despite Trump, not because of him.
The only reason it was upheld is that it was so different from what Trump said he would do that it does not in fact amount to a āMuslim banā.
The reason they upheld it is because it sets out a more or less rationally justified set of criteria based on more or less credible national security concerns and has numerous provisions for exemptions and waivers.
In short, it is not at all what Trump promised - " a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".
Given the careful drafting done by the lawyers Trump derided for weakening his proposed travel ban and the extremely wide discretion and powers given to the President under your constitution when it comes to deciding which foreigners get to come to the US, the overall outcome is hardly surprising.
What I find concerning is the section of Thomas, Jās opinion which lays in to the power of lower courts to grant such wide-ranging injunctions at all.
District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court systemāpreventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.
And so onā¦
The case is not in fact over by the way (although it practical terms it may well be).
The constitutionality of the travel ban has been decided (itās fine as long as it is in fact operated as designed) but the main case is remanded back for determination on that basis.
