SCOTUS backs Trump's travel ban 7-2

[RandBlade]

I thought this worth discussing outside of the Trump thread as its surely its own subject and I'm absolutely shocked not just that the lower court injunctions have been lifted but that they were at a margin of 7-2. After so many years of controversial 5-4 or at most 6-3 decisions I'm amazed that the "liberal" wing only got 2 votes for keeping the injunction. What's happened and why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42231806

[Loki]

The vote is to allow the travel ban to take effect while it works its way through the courts. It doesn't rule on the constitutionality of the ban itself. Different legal standards.

[LittleFuzzy]

Also, this is the third version. SCOTUS already allowed most of version 2 to go into effect while the legal challenges work through the system, and this one really just adds two countries (North Korea and Venezuela) to the list.

[RandBlade]

So if the precedent is that v2 was allowed to go ahead then why was v3 blocked in lower courts that surely should have been obliged to follow SCOTUS's v2 precedent?

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't believe there is any concept of stare decisis when it comes to temporary injunctions. A temporary injunction is always considered directly on the merits, "precedent" has no role. There are standards for the federal courts to follow, but here the court disagreed on the merits.

[Lewkowski]

I thought this worth discussing outside of the Trump thread as its surely its own subject and I'm absolutely shocked not just that the lower court injunctions have been lifted but that they were at a margin of 7-2. After so many years of controversial 5-4 or at most 6-3 decisions I'm amazed that the "liberal" wing only got 2 votes for keeping the injunction. What's happened and why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42231806

It wouldn't surprise me if the final vote goes 5-4 when it the case actually makes it to the SC for decision.