WASHINGTON _ The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a victory Monday by reviving part of his disputed ban on foreign travelers from six Muslim-majority nations.
The justices largely rejected a series of lower court orders that had blocked Trump's policy from taking effect.
The justices said the travel ban may go into effect, except for "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," such as a spouse or close relative.
The court said foreign travelers must demonstrate an existing relationship with the United States to be exempt from the ban.
"The student from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity," the court said. "So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience." But this would not extend to other foreigners who lack this connection.
This will have the effect of narrowing Trump's order while retaining part of it.
The court said it would hear the legal dispute in the fall, but acknowledged the case may be moot by then because the 90-day ban will have expired.
The court noted the government is free to work on new vetting procedures for immigrants from the six countries. "We fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments within the 90-day life of Sec. 2c," the court said, referring to the key clause in the travel ban order.
In a statement, Trump called the decision a "clear victory."
"Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our nation's homeland," he said.
The justices partly agreed with Trump and his lawyers, who argued that the Constitution and federal immigration laws give the chief executive broad power to restrict or suspend the entry of foreign individuals or groups into this country.
Despite the earlier defeats, Trump had voiced confidence he would prevail once the travel ban reached the Supreme Court. His confidence was bolstered in April when his first appointee, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, was confirmed and sworn in.
Gorsuch, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented in part on Monday, saying they would have put the entire order into effect immediately.
The high-court decision suggests that the justices were as troubled by the bold intervention of the judges who blocked Trump's order as they were by the new president's use of his authority.
Trump's ban, first issued on Jan. 27, called for a temporary ban on travelers from several Muslim-majority nations, including Libya, Somalia and Yemen, where legal authority had broken down. That order was blocked by the courts and the administration revised it to address some of the legal concerns.
In defending both versions, the president's advisers argued that a 90-day pause would allow the administration to devise new and stronger vetting procedures to screen travelers.
But federal district judges in Washington state, Hawaii and Maryland, acting on lawsuits, barred both orders taking effect. They cited Trump's campaign promise to enact a "Muslim ban," and said his order was suspect and probably unconstitutional because it reflected religious bias. Trump's lawyers challenged those decisions, but lost in U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia and the 9th Circuit Court in California.
In appealing to the high court, acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall contended that the judges had wrongly "second guessed" the president's determination that travelers from these six nations could threaten the nation's security. He quoted a June 19 opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that said "national security policy is the province of the Congress and president," adding that courts should "accord deference to what the executive branch has determined is essential to national security."
The six countries targeted by Trump's order are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The two cases before the court were Trump vs. Hawaii and Trump vs. International Refugee Assistance Project.
