The Ninth Circuit, later joined by the Fourth Circuit, decided (illegitimately) to put President Trump in his place, broadly rejecting his temporary suspension on travel from six Muslim-majority states – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – that had previously been designated by the Obama administration as terrorism risks. 

In an example of "what goes around comes around," the Supreme Court, in a per curiam – that is to say, unanimous – decision, gave the appellate courts their comeuppance, allowing President Trump's travel bans to be in effect as "against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all."

Never-Trump commentators would do well to reflect on the following statement in the per curiam ruling: "To prevent the Government from [suspending travel by] foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else."  Clearly, the lower courts, in their zeal to injure the Trump presidency, gave no thought to whether a "foreign national" has a connection to the United States.  Excessive, unwarranted, and unfair allegations against President Trump were persuasive at the Ninth Circuit.

How will the media, which lauded the appellate decisions for their anti-Trump bias, respond to the following, which reflects the views of liberal as well as conservative members of the Court?  "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national[.] And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself." 

The ruling implies that the burden of the travel suspension "against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country" will not be magnified into an Establishment Clause issue by claims of anti-Islam animus allegedly made in political campaign remarks.

The ruling also accepted the government's request for writ of certiorari, and the issue will be set down for argument at the October 2017 term.  Pending a decision on the merits, the travel suspension does not affect "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the [travel suspension]."

What next from the left: demands that the Supreme Court be impeached?