really tough, controversial terms. i would expect him to weigh in any minute now via twitter and i m wondering if he will even try to go further with this. we know that immigration for him is an issue that he wants to talk about during the mid-term elections and right across the street from the supreme court lawmakers in the capitol are weighing a couple of immigration proposals and policies. i m wondering what this will prompt the president to do. eric: why do you think the high court discounted the president s statements that the lower courts took into consideration? i m not sure. i understand why people would look at those statements and go this is trying to say it was a muslim ban. he is saying no, it s a travel ban. the court obviously agreeing with the president. i m not sure exactly how they based it on. as marie said as it goes to the lower court they could reconsider those. i think it s really important to remember the context in
centers to provide information about abortion probably violates the constitution. it was a 5-4 ruling that also will cast doubt on similar laws in two other states, hawaii and illinois. our very own shannon eam is outside of the supreme court as these decisions come out. shannon, the travel ban decision, what do we know there? it is a 5-4 decision authored by john roberts saying the proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential authority under the ina, the immigration law. he says there is no contention the plaintiffs cannot say that they have been their rights have been violated. essentially he is saying here that the president acted within his authority, within his scope when he drafted the travel ban. they also note there are a number of majority muslim countries that have gotten themselves off the list because they have complied with what came as part of travel ban 3.0. if your country will give us
him to exercise an absolute and total ban on people from countries whom he believes would be harmful if they enter the united states. that s all the court wants to look at. i have to underscore this is a preliminary ruling. that means the travel ban is the law of the land but if someone wants to say i m entitled to an exception from it, they can apply for that exception in a federal court. but the federal court must presume that the travel ban is valid because the supreme court has declared that it is. eric: why under the law is it significant that the majority basically did not consider the president s words as a candidate and narrowly foixed just on the law. that s a great question, eric because sometimes when the supreme court makes a ruling like this, the president has the authority to exclude people from countries when he believes their presence in the united states will be harmful to national security. it also makes other rulings at
travel ban. we just got reaction from president trump. he tweeted two minutes ago. supreme court upholds trump travel ban, wow. let s go to shannon bream at the supreme court and now officially reaction from the white house, shannon. sandra: a good day for them. they should be celebrating this. the case will continue through a trip through the lower courts. 5-4 decision day the chief justice wrote that it s found on legitimate purposes. inducing other nations to improving practices. the text says nothing about religion. five of the seven nations have muslim majority countries but he goes on to say that fact alone doesn t give support to an inference of religious hostility given the policy covers 8% of the world s muslim population. they disregarded the president s statement and stuck to the text and found the travel ban 3.0 survives for
clear statutory language. so again, they are looking to the language of the statute and the language of the proclamation. the administration calls it is proclamation. a lot have referred to the executive order. the third version of the travel ban and today it survives scrutiny. sandra: you ll stand by. we expect more decisions to come down. let s bring in e a-team. marie harf, fox news analyst. rachel campos-duffy, fox news contributor and caitlin huey-burns is national political reporter for real clear politics. caitlin, do you first as you are now seeing the travel ban 3.0 as it has become known at issue here with the discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion. shannon just put it, a win for the trump administration at least for now? at least for now. it is a win for now. we ll keep going through the