Has Trump finally found a court that will endorse the travel ban once and for all?

Updated 11:55 AM EDT, Mon June 5, 2017
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 31:  U.S. President Donald Trump awaits the arrival of Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc at the White House May 31, 2017 in Washington, DC. According to Phuc, the U.S. and Vietnam are working on new trade agreements after the Trump Administration withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 31: U.S. President Donald Trump awaits the arrival of Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc at the White House May 31, 2017 in Washington, DC. According to Phuc, the U.S. and Vietnam are working on new trade agreements after the Trump Administration withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:02
Travel ban to head to Supreme Court
muslim ban jake tapper fact check orig nws_00002104.jpg
muslim ban jake tapper fact check orig nws_00002104.jpg
Now playing
03:45
Is travel ban a 'total and complete' Muslim ban?
trump travel ban
CNN
trump travel ban
Now playing
01:39
Trump reacts to travel ban ruling
Jeremy Moorhead/CNN
Now playing
02:19
Voices divided on travel ban ruling
travel ban trump then and now orig nws_00002328.jpg
travel ban trump then and now orig nws_00002328.jpg
Now playing
01:23
Trump's travel ban then and now
CNN
Now playing
01:53
The seven countries banned by Trump
CNN
Now playing
00:57
Toobin: This is Muslim ban dressed in a tutu
Now playing
01:42
Senator: Supreme Court abandoned responsibility
WASHINGTON - MARCH 08:  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testifies before the House Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Capitol Hill March 8, 2007 in Washington, DC. Thomas and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about concerns with the ongoing remodeling of the court building, the reduction of paperwork due to electronic media and the disparity of pay between federal judges and lawyers working in the private sector.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
WASHINGTON - MARCH 08: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testifies before the House Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Capitol Hill March 8, 2007 in Washington, DC. Thomas and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about concerns with the ongoing remodeling of the court building, the reduction of paperwork due to electronic media and the disparity of pay between federal judges and lawyers working in the private sector. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Now playing
00:58
Justice Kennedy harshly critiques Trump
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC. Today the high court is hearing arguments in Chavez-Mesa v. US, which concerns a technical matter regarding sentencing guidelines. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be representing the government. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC. Today the high court is hearing arguments in Chavez-Mesa v. US, which concerns a technical matter regarding sentencing guidelines. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be representing the government. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:48
Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban
CHICAGO - SEPTEMBER 25: Travelers with their baggage are seen in a check-in line September 25, 2006 at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois. The TSA announced today they have slightly relaxed the ban on carrying some liquids onto passenger flights to allow most toiletries and beverages bought after the security checkpoints.  (Photo by Tim Boyle/Getty Images)
Tim Boyle/Getty Images North America/Getty Images
CHICAGO - SEPTEMBER 25: Travelers with their baggage are seen in a check-in line September 25, 2006 at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois. The TSA announced today they have slightly relaxed the ban on carrying some liquids onto passenger flights to allow most toiletries and beverages bought after the security checkpoints. (Photo by Tim Boyle/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:31
Trump's latest travel ban
Now playing
04:04
Listen as lawyers argue travel ban case
President Donald Trump smiles during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2017.
NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump smiles during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2017.
Now playing
02:36
Court cites Trump tweets in travel ban ruling
travel ban immigrant families althaibani
CNN, Family Photos
travel ban immigrant families althaibani
Now playing
02:29
Families in limbo over Trump's travel ban
Now playing
01:14
Jeff Sessions: Travel ban protects Americans
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 01:  U.S. President Donald Trump announces his decision for the United States to pull out of the Paris climate agreement in the Rose Garden at the White House June 1, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump pledged on the campaign trail to withdraw from the accord, which former President Barack Obama and the leaders of 194 other countries signed in 2015. The agreement is intended to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit global warming to a manageable level.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Win McNamee/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 01: U.S. President Donald Trump announces his decision for the United States to pull out of the Paris climate agreement in the Rose Garden at the White House June 1, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump pledged on the campaign trail to withdraw from the accord, which former President Barack Obama and the leaders of 194 other countries signed in 2015. The agreement is intended to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit global warming to a manageable level. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Now playing
02:30
Trump pushes travel ban in tweetstorm

Story highlights

The court is likely to act on the government's requests sometime in June

As usual, Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the decider-in-chief

(CNN) —  

With a stroke of a pen in January, President Donald Trump triggered chaos as lawful permanent residents, refugees and others seeking entry suddenly found themselves in a legal no man’s land, stuck between the US border and the President’s executive order on immigration.

Now, after the courts have blocked the order and the President has issued a revised edition, the Department of Justice has gone to the Supreme Court.

Has the President finally found a court that will endorse the legal underpinnings of the travel ban and allow it to go into effect?

In legal briefs filed at 10:51 p.m. ET Thursday night, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall asked the court for two things: allow the ban to go into effect now and hear arguments concerning its legality next fall.

Many believe the justices will ultimately want to review the lower court opinions that struck down a major initiative of the Executive Branch. But would they allow the ban to go into effect immediately, before they even have the opportunity to hear arguments?

As the court contemplates the government’s requests – and the country and much of the world waits – legal experts are in overdrive exploring potential off ramps for the justices. As usual, Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the decider-in-chief.

Complicating efforts could be the President’s own words. Trump on Monday emphatically referred to his executive order on immigration as a “travel ban” and said his Justice Department should not have submitted a “watered down, politically correct version” to the Supreme Court.

Trump’s suggestion that changes to the ban were due to political correctness could hamper his administration’s legal argument that the executive order did not target Muslims. As a candidate, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration to the United States, and Justice Department lawyers have gone to great lengths to avoid calling it a “travel ban” in court, referring to it as a “temporary pause” or simply “the executive order.”

Should the ban go into effect immediately?

The first request the government makes – asking for the court to put a hold on the lower courts’ injunctions – might be an uphill climb.

One factor the justices will consider is whether “irreparable harm” would result from a denial of the government’s request, keeping the lower courts’ injunctions on the ban in place.

Late Friday afternoon, the justices asked the challengers to respond to the government’s petition.

The challengers are likely to point out that since the revised travel ban was blocked before it could ever go into effect, there can’t be any “irreparable harm” in maintaining the status quo.

That might doom the government’s application.

But what if the court did grant the government’s request and allowed the ban to go into effect now? That could unleash an unusual circumstance because of the travel ban’s unique time limitation.

The ban suspends entry for 90 days for those seeking entry from six Muslim-majority countries. So, if the court allows it to go into effect immediately, by the time the justices hear the case next fall, the ban will have expired.

“At that point, the case may very well be moot,” wrote Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at University of California Irvine School of Law.

Easy way out?

Some believe the Supreme Court might be able to find a way to defuse the issue that is tangled up in two slightly different injunctions that have been issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and by a district court judge under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In essence, the justices would respond to the government’s stay application by narrowing the scope of the injunctions, allowing some of the challenged provisions of the ban go into effect while upholding a block on the most contentious aspect: the section that actually suspends travel.

Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet floated the idea, calling it an “easy out” for the court.

“The case will then almost certainly be moot by the time it’s argued, and all that would be left would be to clean things up, presumably by directing that whatever injunctions are still in effect should be vacated,” he posited on the Balkinization blog, which discusses legal matters.

The Kennedy factor

But what if the court does not take Tushnet’s off ramp and eventually digs into the merits of the case? Kennedy could, as usual, be a critical vote.

Here’s why:

Challengers say the order is motivated by religious animus in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The President’s intent, they say, is evident from statements he made on the campaign trail referring to a so-called “Muslim Ban.”

In its opinion that upheld a halt of the ban, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ringing endorsement of that argument.