Figures.

The Supreme Court ruling on Trump Travel Order No. 3 has been saved for the last 2 or 3 decision days of the term this week, mornings when I’m almost certainly not available as the decision is handed down.

So consider this a pre-ruling preview.

The Third Travel Order, unveiled as a presidential proclamation in September 2017, prohibits entry of nationals—to varying degrees—from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela.

The Travel Order is not a “travel ban,” it’s an order regulating who can come into the United States. It’s no more a “travel ban” than the U.S. immigration laws. But “travel ban” is how the media and even many Trump supporters refer to it — at one point Trump himself capitulated to this media characterization as to earlier versions of the travel order.

It’s not only not a “travel ban,” it’s not a “Muslim ban,” which is the rallying cry against it. Any legal analyst who refers to it as a Muslim ban should not be taken seriously, regardless of the outcome of the case. It does apply to several majority Muslim countries, which were on an Obama-era list of countries that posed the greatest risk of foreign fighters sneaking into the U.S. under visas. It also applies to North Korea and Syria. But it doesn’t apply to most Muslim-majority countries or most Muslims in the world.

Before Travel Order No. 3 went into effect, however, district judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked enforcement.

For background on the past history of the Hawaii case, which was the case accepted first by SCOTUS, see our prior posts:

The arguments at the Supreme Court oral argument strongly indicated that the Travel Order would survive, but sometimes Justices’ reactions at oral argument can be deceiving.

Yet few analysts are expecting SCOTUS to uphold the lower court injunctions. (Jinx)

The fact that SCOTUS on multiple occasions has stayed lower court injunctions as to Travel Order No. 2 and No. 3 demonstrates that the Justices are uncomfortable with (a) the judiciary usurping Executive Branch power over immigration and national security, and (b) single district court judges issuing national injunctions to do so.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will rein in the Resistance Judges.