Opponents of President Donald Trump’s immigration travel order lost another round at the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
Earlier this year, various federal courts blocked the president’s controversial travel ban that prevented refugees from six primarily Muslim nations from entering the country. The high court, however, eventually allowed the administration to impose a version of the ban — in essence, on those who had no connection to the United States — until the issue could be argued this fall.
Since then, however, a handful of judges have attempted to expand the framework of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order. In July, for instance, a federal judge in Hawaii issued a ruling that ignored the Supreme Court’s directive and paved the way for 24,000 refugees — many of whom had no ties to the country — to enter the United States. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
On Wednesday, however, the high court tossed out both of those rulings. It’s worth noting that there were no dissents included in the brief order, meaning even the court’s liberal wing recognized that the lower courts had exceeded their authority.
The Wall Street Journal has observed that some federal judges seem intent on joining the Trump “resistance,” particularly when it comes to the travel ban. But what matters, in this case, isn’t the president’s popularity or the merits of his policies. It’s whether the Constitution grants Mr. Trump and the executive branch the power to make such determinations.
The Supreme Court’s Wednesday order is a victory for the rule of law.