Evan Vucci / AP

President Trump described today's Supreme Court decision on his travel ban as a "clear victory for our national security," but as Justice Clarence Thomas makes clear in his dissenting opinion, Trump's "victory" is muddy at best.

Why this matters: Trump can claim a symbolic win but the reality is that the Supreme Court isn't upholding his travel ban; it's allowing a much softer version of the original ban to stay in place until the Court hears the case properly in a few months.

Instead of halting travel for 90 days from six countries deemed to be terrorist threats — and suspending the U.S. refugee program for 120 days — the Court will let travelers from the banned countries enter the U.S. if they have "bona fide relationships" with people or entities in the U.S. That's a far cry from January, when senior White House officials wanted to bar green card holders and people traveling for medical emergencies.

  • For instance: Refugee resettlement agencies are already telling reporters that they interpret their relationships with their clients as "bona fide relationships."

Justice Thomas predicts these relationships will be very difficult, if not impossible, to police:

  • "I fear that the Court's remedy will prove unworkable," he writes in his dissent, also signed by justices Gorsuch and Alito. "Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country."
  • "The compromise," he adds, "also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid'" Trump's executive order.

On the bright-side (for Trump): the Supreme Court justices were far more respectful of his executive authorities than the lower courts. And we can already see from their dissenting opinion that three of the Supreme Court justices — Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito — are inclined to support Trump's full travel ban.

Go deeper

Updated 1 hour ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Global: Total confirmed cases as of 7 p.m. ET: 31,759,233 — Total deaths: 973,904 Total recoveries: 21,811,742Map.
  2. U.S.: Total confirmed cases as of 7 p.m. ET: 6,939,645 — Total deaths: 201,861 — Total recoveries: 2,646,959 — Total tests: 96,616,779Map.
  3. Health: CDC director says over 90% of Americans have not yet been exposed to coronavirus — Supply shortages continue to plague testing.
  4. Politics: Missouri Gov. Mike Parson tests positive for coronavirus — Poll says 51% of Republicans trust Trump on coronavirus more than the CDC.
  5. Technology: The tech solutions of 2020 may be sapping our resolve to beat the coronavirus
  6. Vaccines: Johnson & Johnson begins large phase 3 trial — The FDA plans to toughen standards.
  7. Sports: Less travel is causing the NBA to see better basketball.

Trump refuses to commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses

President Trump repeatedly refused to say on Wednesday whether he would commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election to Joe Biden, saying at a press briefing: "We're going to have to see what happens."

The big picture: Trump has baselessly claimed on a number of occasions that the only way he will lose the election is if it's "rigged," claiming — without evidence — that mail-in ballots will result in widespread fraud. Earlier on Wednesday, the president said he wants to quickly confirm a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because he believes the Supreme Court may have to decide the result of the election.

"Not enough": Protesters react to no murder charges in Breonna Taylor case

A grand jury has indicted Brett Hankison, one of the Louisville police officers who entered Breonna Taylor's home in March, on three counts of wanton endangerment for firing shots blindly into neighboring apartments.

The state of play: Angering protesters, the grand jury did not indict any of the three officers involved in the botched drug raid on homicide or manslaughter charges related to the death of Taylor.

Get Axios AM in your inbox

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!