Ruling was 5-4.
I think the ban is unnecessary so imo the SC is in the wrong.
It doesn't matter whether or not it's unnecessary (which I believe you're in the wrong), the question before the court is if the ban is constitutional. Considering the 4 against had to center their choice based on shit stated during a campaign versus the actual policy written down, I'd advise people to consider the wider context of this decision before saying "oh this barely got by!"
Most people don't understand the law, or are to quick to jump to their emotions.
Yesterday on Facebook I saw a post telling about how this Jury in SD convicted a gay person to the death penalty instead of life in prison, cause they thought he might enjoy prison being gay. People were going off in the comments about how horrible America is, and how these jury members should be harassed, beaten, ect.
1. The post leaves out what he was guilty of, which was of killing a man execution style at a gas station or something, so it was either life in prison or Death penalty.
2. Jury's do not pass the sentence, but just the guilty or innocent verdict. The sentence is up to the Judge.
Same with SC. People need to realize that basically all they ever do is decide if lower court rulings are constitutional or not. This is not about them agreeing with Trump or not. They are just stating that what he did was within his power and not against the law and thus should be upheld. It means that no more random Hawaii/California judges can pop out of the blue and say its unconstitutional and block it.