A normal president would take this as at least a temporary win, but Donald Trump is way too busy tweeting about Obama and crowd sizes.
In the meantime, the ACLU is continuing their work.
And Trump's "win" may just be temporary, anyway. It only took four justices to move it on to the Court Docket, and the justice department lawyers were already trying to argue that this case is moot as the majority of the plaintiffs have received Visas:
ALI VELSHI: Breaking news this hour from the Supreme Court. The justices have agreed it review the legality of President trump's controversial travel ban from six predominantly Muslim countries. Meanwhile, they are allowing part of the ban to take effect. NBC correspondent Pete Williams joins us live from the Supreme Court. Msnbc chief legal correspondent Ari Melber with me in studio. He's been pouring over it. Pete, let's start with you. What does this mean?
PETE WILLIAMS: What it means is it's a big legal victory for the Trump administration because they got most of what they wanted. They wanted the Supreme Court to take up the appeal of the lower courts and reverse them. They said they would hear them in October. One thing we should note. There doesn't seem to be any particular rush to hear the case. Indeed, they didn't ask for it to be heard over the summer, which sometimes happens. It will be heard the first week in October, most likely, or first or second week in October. The second part is the Trump administration says, please, while this case is on appeal, let us force this 90-day restriction on issuing visas to people who want to come to the US from six Muslim countries. SCOTUS said you can enforce most of it. Here is what you can't do. If someone in those countries has a close family relationship to the United States, or if they are coming to enroll in or coming for a job, something direct and specific like that, some connection to a person or entity in the United States, then you can't enforce the restriction against them, and you have to continue issuing visas in those cases. And the Supreme Court said basically there's a fit here. People who are in those countries and don't know anyone in the United States, don't have a close family relationship, then in that case the travel ban should be enforced for a legal reason, which is that the constitutional rights are not the people in those countries wanting to come to the US. The constitution doesn't apply to them. The constitutional rights are the people in the US who say they want to get their relatives here but can't. That's the challengers who went to court, and that's the ones the Supreme Court said can still get their relatives in. The travel ban cannot apply to them. It's mostly a victory for the Trump administration. They got most of what they wanted, Ali.
VELSHI: Thank you. You've been pouring over this ruling, what do you make of it?
ARI MELBER: We're guided by the words. These words have the rule of law and they are doing to affect hundreds of thousands of people's lives. Let's put up on the screen key language from the language from the Supreme Court. Partially good news for the Trump administration. Do we have it? I was told we don't have it. I will read it to you. The Supreme Court says the travel ban can be enforced against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the US at all. As Pete was explaining, that means if you're in one of these countries, right, and you don't have a credible claim, meaning you have some evidence or argument you have a link to the US, a family member, a school, a job, then you are out of luck. You are now banned from entering this country. That is what Donald Trump has said as president is so important as a national security concern. The other point that I would raise here, we sometimes get clues. We are always careful to say here: know this and folks who follow the court, that a procedural ruling like this doesn't tell you the outcome. There it is. SCOTUS says the travel ban is to be enforced against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. If you take anything, take that. Some clues here. While Donald Trump has not been the ideal client for lawyers in this case, has said and tweeted things the judges have held against him, if he listens to his lawyers he'll seize on the page in this ruling that reinforced an argument he made which says interest of national security is urgent objective of the highest order. The court in explaining why it's giving more power back to the White House while it's on appeal, they are going to hear in October, that is to prevent the government, Trump administration, from pursuing that objective against foreign nationals unconnected to the US would appreciably injure its interest, the national security. We have to wait to see what his reaction is. Lawyers and solicitors general will welcome that language.
"If he listens to his lawyers." You mean the deadbeat client who can't stop confessing on Twitter?
And we don't know how this affects refugees who have a sponsor here in the United States. Is that a "bonafide relationship" or not?
