A partial win for President Trump's travel ban?

One point should be clear from the Supreme Court's per curiam decision in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project: references to campaign statements by presidential candidate Trump urging a halt in Muslim immigration to the United States will not be persuasive in court.  At issue, according to the opinion, is U.S. national security, and the federal government is uniquely situated to decide the matter. The following statement from the opinion seems to provide the essence of the opinion's rationale: An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of...(Read Full Post)