Via the Washington Post, the ruling strikes down the injunction against the third iteration of Trump's ban. The lawsuit against the ban is still alive, but just barely:
The decision came in connection with the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban, issued last fall, which barred various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities.
The administration argued before the court earlier this year that it was within the president’s power to issue the travel restrictions and that it is not a “Muslim ban” based on religious discrimination, as critics have said.
But the challengers, led by the state of Hawaii, said that the order exceeded Trump’s authority and violated the Constitution and that its citizens and educational institutions have suffered because of the ban.
Roberts was careful not to endorse either Trump's provocative statements about immigration in general and Muslims in particular.
"We express no view on the soundness of the policy," Roberts wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that based on the evidence in the case "a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus."
She said her colleagues arrived at the opposite result by "ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens."
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan also dissented.
