trump travel ban
PHOTO: CNN
trump travel ban
Now playing
01:39
Trump reacts to travel ban ruling
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?
PHOTO: 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
PHOTO: CNN
Now playing
01:53
The seven countries banned by Trump
PHOTO: 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)
PHOTO: 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)
PHOTO: 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)
PHOTO: 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.
PHOTO: 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
PHOTO: 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)
PHOTO: 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
(CNN) —  

In its most consequential decision of the term, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump’s so-called “travel ban” – arguing that the chief executive has the power to limit entrance into the US from seven countries.

It is a massive win for Trump, who had watched as his attempts to put travel bans in place were repeatedly blocked by lower courts – arguing that to do so exceeded his power and that his emphasis during the campaign on making this a “Muslim ban” violated the Constitution.

“Wow,” was all the usually voluble Trump offered up – via Twitter – in the immediate aftermath of the ruling.

Having skimmed the actual ruling – and having closely followed the politics of the travel ban for more than a year – here are my five takeaways.

1. Elections matter. A lot.

The vote to uphold the travel ban was 5-4 – along party lines. If Hillary Clinton beats Donald Trump on November 8, 2016, there’s no way that the vacancy caused by the death of Antonin Scalia is filled by Neil Gorsuch. It’s almost certainly filled instead by someone more likely to side with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor rather than Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. And while it’s impossible to believe a Clinton White House would have proposed a travel ban anything close to what Trump did, even if she did, the court would be far more likely to vote it down – not uphold it.

The truth is, Republicans may not yet be done reaping the judicial consequences of Trump’s 2016 victory. Rumors are rampant that Justice Anthony Kennedy may well retire at the end of this term, which comes to a close this week. While Kennedy voted in favor of upholding the travel ban – and was appointed to the court by Ronald Reagan – he is seen as a not-always-reliable conservative vote. His retirement would afford Trump an opportunity to appoint someone along the lines of Gorsuch and, in so doing, impact the ideological makeup of the court for decades to come.

2. This is as much Mitch McConnell’s victory as it is Donald Trump’s

Trump will view the travel ban decision as a validation that he was, from the start, right all along about his ability to limit who comes into the country. (Worth noting: The court upheld the third iteration of the travel ban after the first two were thrown out due to problems with the way they were written.) And there’s no question this is a win for Trump. He campaigned on the idea that the President needed to make the tough call of keeping people from certain countries out – or, at least, upping the threshold to allow them into the United States – in order to keep Americans safe. This court ruling validates his right to do that.

But don’t underestimate the role McConnell, the Senate majority leader, played in Tuesday’s decision. McConnell, you will remember, refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, the judge then-President Barack Obama put forward as Scalia’s replacement. McConnell argued that Scalia’s death in February was too close to the November election for Obama, an outgoing president, to be allowed to make the call on who would fill the seat. (Obama nominated Garland, who was seen as a sort-of consensus candidate, in mid-March.) “The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country,” explained McConnell at the time.

Liberals went crazy but McConnell refused to budge. Obama castigated McConnell but McConnell refused to budge. And the reality of how the confirmation process works made it impossible for McConnell’s decision to be overturned. Tuesday’s court decision validated that strategy. Never one to miss a trolling opportunity, McConnell’s campaign arm tweeted out this photo of himself and Gorsuch shortly after the opinion was announced.

3. The President has loads of power

Since, really, Bill Clinton, we’ve seen presidents seek to expand their powers while limiting the powers of Congress. George W. Bush did it. Barack Obama did it. And, yes, Trump has and is doing it.

What the court ruling on the travel ban reinforces is that the President of the United States has very wide latitude. What he says, largely speaking, goes. “The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the President’s sweeping statutory authority when it comes to deciding who may and who may not travel to the United States, authority that both President Trump and future presidents will surely rely upon to justify more aggressive immigration restrictions,” University of Texas law school professor and CNN Supreme Court analyst Stephen Vladeck said.

Broadly speaking, US presidents seek to push the outward boundaries of presidential power left by their predecessors. This is a major growth of those boundaries that the person who follows Trump in office will treat as the new normal.

4. The court didn’t take Trump literally

At the heart of this case were Trump’s tweets and past statements as a candidate that he would impose a Muslim ban if elected president. Back in December 2015, Trump insisted that a “total and complete” shutdown of Muslims entering the country was absolutely necessary. “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension,” Trump said at the time. “Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

After Trump won, he and his White House went out of their way to insist that the travel ban as proposed was not a Muslim ban, noting that some of the largest Muslim countries in the world (by population) were not included in it. And Trump and his allies insisted that what he said as a candidate simply couldn’t be cited as evidence of what he would do as president.

The majority on the court sided with Trump on Tuesday. Wrote Chief Justice John Roberts: “We may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional ground.” Which, in legal-ese, means that what Trump said as a candidate matters less than what he did as President.

5. The court wanted to make clear it wasn’t endorsing past Trump statements on Muslims

The court, ever mindful of the impact of its rulings across not just the country but the world, wanted to make very clear that in upholding Trump’s travel ban, it was not sending any sort of signal about its own views on Islam or religion more generally.

Writes Roberts:

“Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

Again, in layman’s terms: This decision is in no way, shape or form a judgment on whether a President should talk – and tweet – the way Trump does. Instead, it is a decision about whether Trump has the power to limit who comes into the country. And, on that front, the court believes Trump does have that power. But, that’s it.

Kennedy is even more plain on this point, writing: “An anxious world must know that our Government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts.”