Trump travel ban’s fate hinges on emergency US high court request

US President Donald Trump faces an uphill fight convincing the Supreme Court it should grant his emergency request to reinstate his travel ban on people entering the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries. His legal team on Thursday night asked the nine justices to allow his controversial March 6 executive order to take effect immediately despite being blocked by lower courts. The Supreme Court rarely grants emergency requests. At issue is a ban Trump has said is necessary to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. Critics say his reasoning is flawed and assail the ban as discriminatory. Trump’s proposed ban was a centrepiece of his 2016 presidential campaign. The fight over the emergency application is likely to determine whether the ban ever takes effect. That is because if the court grants the request, the ban’s 90-day term will have expired by the time the court decides the legal fate of the proposal. The 5-4 conservative majority on the high court means Trump, a Republican who took office on Jan. 20, likely has a better chance than he has had to date in more liberal-leaning lower courts. “Even though it’s a heavy lift getting a stay, it seems to me that the Supreme Court is the most favourable court they’ve had access to so far,” said John Elwood, a Washington lawyer. The administration needs five votes on the nine-justice court to put the ban into effect. In this instance, the merits of whether it violates the US Constitution’s ban on religious discrimination by targeting Muslims matter less. The court weighs several factors when considering emergency applications. One such application met with success when in February 2016 the court granted on a 5-4 vote a request by states and industry groups to block President Barack Obama’s climate regulations. Under Supreme Court precedent, several criteria need to be met for an emergency application to be granted, including that there would be “irreparable harm” if denied and that there is a “reasonable probability” the court would agree to hear the case on the merits. In the government’s request, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote that the nationwide injunctions blocking the travel ban have caused irreparable harm by “preventing the executive from effectuating his national-security judgement.”