The Supreme Court seemed uneasy with some parts of Trump's travel ban today, but equally uneasy with the implications of a broad ruling against it, Axios' Sam Baker notes.
Be smart, via Sam: It's the first real legal test for a major Trump initiative, but it won't be the last.
- "Immigrant rights groups had hoped that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy would join the court’s four-member liberal wing to oppose the ban. But their questioning was almost uniformly hostile to the challengers." [NYT]
- "[N]either appeared receptive to arguments made by lawyer Neal Katyal, representing the ban’s opponents, that Trump’s rule stems from his campaign pledge to keep Muslims out of the country and is unlike immigration orders issued by any other president." [AP]
- The justices' general willingness to overlook Trump's public statements is a sign of how they're likely to approach this administration — try as hard as possible to treat it like any other.
- If the travel ban does ultimately succeed, that would be a big vindication for Trump, who railed against the lower courts that struck down various versions of the ban.
- It also would vindicate the officials around Trump, who took the sloppy initial order out of his hands, ran it through the more traditional processes he prefers to bypass, and ended up with something the Supreme Court could uphold.