Supreme Court allows parts of Trump travel ban to take effect

ABC News' Emily Rau and Kate Shaw discuss the Supreme Court's decision to allow part of Trump's travel ban to take effect.
10:59 | 06/26/17

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:



Skip to this video now

Now Playing:


Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Supreme Court allows parts of Trump travel ban to take effect
Good morning everybody on this beautiful mind it we are outside this Supreme Court on what has really been an exciting and busy morning. My name is annaly around joined here by Kate south opera fastener and ABC news as Supreme Court contributor. Inside the building alliances have you walk us back to earlier this morning and inside. So this isn't day -- a lot of suspend the court had positive the end it was going to issue all of the remaining opinions in the term. And everyone thought that meant it was also going to announce a what was happening with the traveled and now those that haven't been argued. But the government has asked the court to take cases so we knew there was a very good chance we would get the answer from the court. Was gonna take the cases when would hear the cases would block the lower court orders that had stopped executive order. And indeed we did get an answer that question the other reason there was a lot of suspense today was because it is customary for if there's going to be a retirement on the Supreme Court. That announcement to come in the last seen the terms of there was. There had been rumors are swirling for months the justice Anthony Kennedy has been thinking about retiring. So all liked her very much on him I didn't take any action and then nothing so there's no retirement this year. Most likely that means they'll be another year before we might seated in the Supreme Court although unexpected and of course happened. And you are staying at what an announcement that there is no retire like I'll laugh I sort of wait to see if there's going to be an announcement that someone will retire. And silence just means there's no announcements that are known as we're all sticking around for another year but that's essentially what you can infer from the lack of an announcement. Got it may get a big game and a lot of people are waiting where we you sort of options of what might happen with its travel ban. And what exactly did happen. You don't so we all thought. The administration could get a big win if the Supreme Court decides to block the lower court orders that stopped the executive order we thought. The administration could get a big loss if the Supreme Court that were nodding to hear the case that we're gonna let the lower courts essentially have the last word. And remember the lower courts have that this order is on off or. What happened was something in between there was kind of this middle ground solution that the court seemed to decide to take. Which hints if partial victory to the White House allowing this travel and to go into the back in part. But also gives a partial victory to these plaintiffs who said we have a condition the United States we shouldn't be subject to this ban on entry. And individuals like them according to what the port said today. You'll be able to come in as they were before the issuance of its executive board. Very interesting so the court saying we will take that something that's fall we will talk more about that what do you tell then what happens because we know there's the ninety day element at its iPad and now coming to play. Yes so right so a couple of things one the course would hear the case and actually have arguments there'll be briefed there will be oral arguments. At the very beginning of October when the court returns to her in case they take the summer off and come back in October I'm so it is that we're gonna happen briefing schedule happen over the summer. It'll probably be the first one of the first cases here in October. So that they're gonna probably grapple with these big questions about. Presidential power out questions about whether statements made during the campaign. Which were a big issue in the lower court litigation whether there was no matter at all to the question of whether the president has the authority to issue an order like best. All of that will happen in October so what happens in the meantime you. So you have to major -- this executive order in nineteen again for entry from individuals from six Muslim majority countries. Any 100 and date they earn on our refugee admissions. As to both of those things. What the court did today with day. Those billions can partially go into effect for individuals who have no connection to the United States. But for people have it on a fight connection to the United States. They have daily numbers here he'd been admitted to university. Saying why why was one of the plaintiffs in this case if that we have a lot of where students have been admitted it this man goes into the fact that contour university as they were planning to view. If you get a job or job offer with an American company. That's a connection the United States and you can't be being earned by its order from entering the trinket it's not a blanket. But to individuals with no existing connections to the United States this band can take effect so there is going to be for the first time because the president issued its order. First in January and in this version in March. But. Even before it went into effect the lower courts blocked so there's this this thing and has existed only in theories and the administration first issued in March for the first time. Starting probably 72 hours from now it will it will go into effect so individuals who can't show that Spotify connection the United States. App you'll be prevented from entry so this is you know this is a partial. But quite significant victory for the administration it. Let me my next thing you mentioned him presidential power at at all and the political implications like this meet him. You will have some people saying this is absolutely and for president front they're saying not so fast what's your take on. A lot depends on how. It's opinion that was issued today to interpret so. This is a very interesting opinion it's what's called a park here in the pink out there it is right here let's say they're found in what looked like it answered a little stapled booklets. Opinion. Usually there's an author of a Supreme Court opinion sometimes it means must hope for curious. No identified all there it means the court essentially speaking with one voice and we're not telling you whose opinion is it opinion on the court. It's well it's actually become indicate that hasn't been working so this was just papers have been filed of an oral argument but it's not doing most of opinions com. But what's interesting about this with the Mercury in order but. I would think chief Justice Roberts fingerprints are all over it feels to me like something chief Justice Roberts probably orchestrated. I'm so so it is indeed upon my connection to the United States and I think they give a couple examples student with a mission family members here things like that. But there will be harder cases in gray areas and the supreme court's not gonna go case by case and decide who gets to come in and who doesn't so. Executive branch officials went to make that determination potentially lower courts if there's litigation if somebody is denied entry. I presume they'll be filing additional lawsuits over the summer to say on this orders at like the kind and I have. You know I have a can I haven't a job offer from a British company has an office in the United States that's where I want my placement. You know the court opinion doesn't say anything about that's adelphia line I think a very tricky. Interpretive questions about what this opinion means. And I think it's in the executive branch officials the Department of Homeland Security. Interpreted as letting those people in they have a plausible connection to the United States. Then emotionally it's not a huge victory for the administration because for the most part at the end doesn't actually prevent a lot of people from coming in fact if they read it as. Creating a really high bar to clear eyed to actually get entry. But then the big thing for the administration if the point is to kind of have this broad. Order keeping people from these countries out wall. The review the internal kind of review on the vetting process runs its course because remember logic of this thing. Was we're not competent and vetting procedures that preceded emissions from these six and I countries we want to kind of to a top to bottom review of how neat that individuals before we let them into the country and let's kind of put applause on admissions while we do that internal review. So that we're sure we get it right before we start when people in again so they will be going through that internal process over the course summer. Against the backdrop of this partial ban but individuals who is an hour before. Tracing a grant conversation with hammer an earlier he was saying. Sort of of that fact that you cleaned up a little bit a lower court decisions on them but still very much a gray area. I think so I think I mean I think that the Supreme Court if it interest in compromise. That could be you know spot as a victory by either side and I presume will be like as a victory by either side. I'm but. What it means on the ground is gonna really turned on interpretation and inclusion of standing here it's kind of hard. Your take on aren't paying before we wrap up here at religious liberty case coming out that the court is announcing that it will. They will hear Scott's that's right so today. In addition to the travel ban announcement and you know and lack of announcement of any retirement the court issued. A bunch of an ounce it would take or not take a bunch of cases for next turn one case that had been very closely watched was this religious liberty case out of Colorado. It involves a baker who refused to big wedding cake for same sex couples citing religious objections at Colorado has a law that says you can't discriminate on the basis sexual orientation that way. And so he lost in court rights of it the couple that was denied. His services one in the Colorado state courts. And the Supreme Court has just agreed here can skate he argues. The Colorado law that requires thank you. Will service is inconsistent with the First Amendment which gives you the right to religious liberties at a Colorado law that compels me to provide. Speaking services that conflict with my religious convictions. Violates the First Amendment. And it you know this is an important so two years ago the court certainly marriage equality the law of the land. But included some language that suggested it was going to try to find a way. To be. Protective of religious liberties flat out yet exactly sort of gay rights and equality and when Hinton and religious liberty and the other him. This is really those two things coming into conflict in way to the Supreme Court hadn't seen in the two years and it need marriage equality the lawfully. So it's both an important case in and of itself but just kind of more broadly for how these balances are struck. Between competing so that'll be it the case to watch sometime next fall. It'll be this was asleep near term on the traveled in case of course with an exception. But I think that it's it's shaping up to be a pretty eventful term certainly these two cases suggests that the fault. Closely watched. Back to you about this race and we'll in this case the court decided not to take which was interesting at a big Second Amendment case that there is this. Out of California. California doesn't let you carry concealed firearm and lets you. I get a permit that shows could cause you got some special reason to do it and gun rights advocates challenged outlaw first they won the lower court and involved in a lower court in this case has been pending before the supreme court for quite some time. And a lot of kind of gun rights advocate. Really hoping the court would take this case and reaffirm a very strong vision Second Amendment. And the court denied the case it won't hear that case it is interesting. Justice Thomas and justice corsets both dissented and basically said the court really should have heard this case the corporates are essentially respecting the Second Amendment that we do other constitutional right. So at some point some case like this will come before the court but it's interesting that the court decided not to take up that particular really contentious and divisive issue at least right now. That's corsets that can on the boxing is totally I know he's deadly hit the ground running he's not. Sort of hanging back and getting his bearings he is not you know off now there's really not OK great thank you so much hate stuff as a locked professed her interview there contribute every sneeze they think we're think he's on my attorney Alan Hendricks figuring Elvis sound very complex but we're excited. For Al the F happenings coming up this fall and will sign up for ABC news lie about Natalie route thanks to.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":48283245,"title":"Supreme Court allows parts of Trump travel ban to take effect","duration":"10:59","description":"ABC News' Emily Rau and Kate Shaw discuss the Supreme Court's decision to allow part of Trump's travel ban to take effect.","url":"/Politics/video/supreme-court-parts-trump-travel-ban-effect-48283245","section":"Politics","mediaType":"default"}