The conservative majority on the Supreme Court seemed to agree Wednesday that President Trump has the authority to ban travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks that it is necessary to protect the country.

Lower courts have struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel-ban proclamation, the first of which was issued just a week after he took office in January 2017. But the conservative-leaning Supreme Court may be Trump’s best hope, and it gave the administration a boost by allowing the ban to go into effect in December while considering the challenges to it.

[In travel-ban case, Supreme Court considers ‘the president’ vs. ‘this president’]

Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the justices that the president was well within his power to issue the proclamation and that it came after a thorough, worldwide review of the vetting procedures of countries.

“The vast majority of the world, including the vast majority of the Muslim world, was just fine,” Francisco said, while a “tiny” number of countries were not.

If it were meant to be a Muslim ban, he said, “it would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine, since not only does it exclude the vast majority of the Muslim world, it also omits three Muslim-majority countries that were covered by past orders.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was most active in advancing the notion that the president is privy to national security information that courts are ill prepared to second-guess.

And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who always seems to occupy the pivotal position when conservative and liberal justices disagree, asked questions that mostly seemed supportive of the president’s authority.

It would seem almost impossible for challengers to prevail without one of those justices joining their colleagues on the left.

The high-profile hearing, the last of the court’s term as it turns now to writing opinions, called for the justices to balance their usual deference to the president on matters of national security with a never-before-seen barrage of campaign statements, tweets, retweets and comments from the president tying Muslims to terrorism.

Just hours after Francisco told the court the president had made it “crystal clear . . . he had no intention of imposing the Muslim ban,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders sidestepped a reporter’s question about whether the administration disavowed Trump’s campaign promise to enact one.

Sanders read a statement about the ban that said residents of many majority-Muslim countries could travel to the United States. “I think that alone in action answers your question clearly,” she said.

The court is considering the iteration of Trump’s travel ban, issued last fall, that barred various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities. They are Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. But restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela are not part of the challenge. Chad was removed from the list earlier this month.

The first questions for Francisco came from the two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, who had noted their dissent from the high court’s earlier order to allow the ban to go into effect while challenges continued.

Sotomayor suggested that Congress had already taken steps to ensure national security by implementing a heightened vetting process for travelers from other countries.

“Where does a president get the authority to do more than Congress has already decided is adequate?” she asked.

Francisco pointed to the removal of Chad from the list as evidence that the review process was working as anticipated, by encouraging more cooperation from countries to help screen out those who might intend to harm the United States.

The challengers are led by the state of Hawaii, which said its citizens and educational institutions have suffered because of the ban.

Former Obama administration acting solicitor general Neal K. Katyal, representing Hawaii, said Trump had taken an “iron wrecking ball” to the law Congress had implemented to govern immigration and keep the nation safe.

“If you accept this order, you’re giving the president a power no president in 100 years has exercised, an executive proclamation that countermands Congress’s policy judgments,” Katyal said.

Conservative justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, along with Roberts, peppered Katyal with questions on how the president had exceeded his lawful authority, given that Congress had granted the executive branch broad latitude to bar people’s entry into the United States.

Alito noted the law says that if the president found the entry of “any aliens” to be detrimental to U.S. interests, he could bar them. How, he asked, did the travel ban not fall “squarely” within that power?

Alito also said the ban affected only 8 percent of the world’s Muslim population.

“If you look at what was done, it does not look at all like a Muslim ban,” Alito said.

Roberts posited a hypothetical: If the intelligence agencies told the president that 20 Syrian nationals planned to enter the United States with biological weapons, could the president ban the entry of Syrians to stop them? Katyal conceded that he could, because in that instance — unlike this one — there was a true emergency.

Roberts asked whether there were a “statute of limitations” on a president’s campaign statements.

“Tomorrow, he issues a proclamation disavowing those statements, then the next day he could reenter this and your discrimination argument would not be applicable?” Roberts asked.

Katyal said that it probably would. But Trump and his administration have “rekindled” the comments.

Justice Elena Kagan similarly asked Francisco about a hypothetical anti-Semitic candidate for president who, once elected, put in place a proclamation blocking entry for citizens of Israel. She asked: Could the courts intervene in such a situation?

“This is an out-of-the-box kind of president in my hypothetical,” Kagan added, prompting laughter from the courtroom.

Francisco called it a “tough hypothetical” but said such a president could impose the measure if it came at the recommendation of staffers who had identified a genuine national security problem.

In contrast, Francisco said Trump’s travel ban is an “easy case” because it came after a multiagency review and on the advice of Cabinet officials. He conceded that if Cabinet officials knew the president was ordering a ban based on religious animus, because he told them as much, they would be “duty bound” to resign or refuse to comply with his order to come up with a justification.

“Is everything that the president said effectively that?” Kagan asked.

Kennedy picked up on Kagan’s questioning, asking Francisco to consider a local candidate for mayor who made “hateful’ comments and then upon being elected acted on those impulses. “You would say whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant?” Kennedy asked.

Francisco said he would.

But Kennedy had more, and tougher, questions for Katyal.

When Katyal said Trump’s travel ban had no end, Kennedy said, “So you want the president to say, ‘I’m convinced that in six months we’re going to have a safe world?’ ”

And if there is a question about whether there is a threat to security, Kennedy asked Katyal, did he think “that’s for the courts to do, not the president?”

The justices are reviewing a unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. That panel said the third version of the travel ban suffered from the deficiencies of the first two — that Trump had again exceeded his lawful authority and that he had not made a legally sufficient finding that entry of those blocked would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond struck down the ban on the constitutional question. The 9-to-4 decision took a deep dive into Trump’s statements and tweets since he became president and concluded that the proclamation, like the first two, was motivated not by national security concerns but by antipathy toward Muslims.

The case is Trump v. Hawaii. The court will issue its decision some time before the conclusion of the term at the end of June.

Remember back on the campaign trail when then-candidate Trump denounced state dinners altogether? Speaking about “China and others” who allegedly “ripped off” the United States, Trump said that the White House should “forget the state dinners that cost, by the way, a fortune.” Hamburgers, which POTUS unabashedly enjoys, and a conference table were all the pomp and circumstance he needed, so the campaign bombast went, to iron things out.

My, how things have changed. Turns out a little grandeur is good for the gander.

In the lead up to the Trumps’ debut as a diplomatic duo, much was made of Mrs. Trump’s taste, her classiness, her “design background,” her general elegance. The night was basically marketed as Melania’s moment — an opportunity for the first lady, who has appeared reluctant in the role, to show off a little. She tweeted about the “months of preparation” her team had put in and even posted a brief behind-the-scenes video showing the East Wing hard at work. This was her chance to shine. So did she?

[For Melania Trump, fashion diplomacy was defined by a hat]

Melania Trump, a former model, made her grand entrance on the North Portico of the White House wearing haute couture Chanel. The silver frock was hand painted and embroidered with crystals and sequins. The choice was unsurprisingly high fashion (a black Givenchy tuxedo cape and custom-made Hervé Pierre hat also made cameos during this visit) and Mrs. Trump seemed wholly at ease in the part she played Tuesday night.

The president himself made it a point to highlight the first lady’s efforts during his opening toast.

“To America’s absolutely incredible first lady, thank you for making this an evening we will always cherish and remember,” said Trump in a toast that went on to honor America and France’s centuries-long friendship and encouraged the two countries to “work together every day to build a future that is more just, prosperous and free.”

When second lady Karen Pence was asked by the waiting press pool how Mrs. Trump was doing as first lady, Vice President Pence answered for her: “Breathtaking,” he said as the second couple made their way to the State Dining Room, a formal and intimate setting. So it would seem that the first lady earned a solid A-plus for her first diplomatic outing.

[‘She has a design background’: Melania Trump prepares to host first state dinner]

The rest of the 130 or so guests appeared more taken with the French than anything else.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said he planned “to thank the people of France for selling Louisiana to the United States.”

When asked if she spoke French, the president’s elder daughter Ivanka Trump, special adviser to 45, answered, “Oui, un petit peu.” Translation: “Yes, a little bit.”

Instagram’s favorite political spouse Louise Linton, who arrived wearing a Cavalli gown and her husband, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, said she was looking forward to “everything French.”

Earlier in the evening, U.S. Attorney General Jerome Adams struck a more serious note. He said he was excited about chatting about the opioid epidemic with the French president. Okay, at least someone there meant business. Adams’s wife Lacey, though, was less diplomatic: “I wanna see who’s on the guest list.” Don’t we all.

The list was fairly standard for events like these, filled mostly with White House officials, cabinet members, the diplomatic corps and a smattering of surprise faces.

[Complete guest list for the state dinner in honor of French president Emmanuel Macron]

CIA Director Mike Pompeo breezed past the press without answering any questions about his nomination for secretary of state. Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards was one of the few Democrats who made the cut. Apple CEO Tim Cook brought along former Obama administration EPA chief and current Apple environmental director Lisa Jackson. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch arrived with his wife, former model Jerry Hall, who said she was looking forward to “seeing the French president.” Managing head of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde, who is French, was slightly less enthused. “This is my third French dinner,” she said.

The most unexpected (and perhaps joy-filled) moment came when a seemingly unrecognizable couple arrived at the White House. (Don’t worry: their last name wasn’t Salahi.)

“Are we supposed to stop?” asked the man as he conferred with the woman standing next to him. To help jog the press’s memory “in case you guys don’t know who we are,” the pair pulled two giant medals seemingly out of nowhere. Still nothing? Remember the Olympics? In South Korea? Which would have been a “total failure” without President Trump? These two — curler John Shuster and ice hockey player Meghan Duggan — were there and won gold.

So do you guys travel with those everywhere? “Pretty much,” laughed Shuster before eventually heading down a hallway decorated with giant sprays of nearly 1,200 cherry blossom branches to the State Dining Room. Dripping with the first couple’s particular brand of style, which leans heavily toward the ornate, the room was decorated in cream and gold. Tall tapered candles illuminated tables draped with heavy damask-like tablecloths placed with china that included a 24-karat gold engraved pattern introduced by then-first lady Hillary Clinton. Low-set tightly massed centerpieces of sweet peas and white lilacs decorated each table. Menu cards embossed with a gold fleur de lis were a nod to the guests of honor. The effect was understated but with a touch of that recognizable Trump flash.

The three-course meal — “a showcase of the best of America’s cuisines,” according to the East Wing — featured rack of lamb served alongside jambalaya, a traditional Louisiana dish with heavy French influences. The Post’s food critic Tom Sietsema described the main course as “a lovely nod to the American South.” The wine that was paired with dinner all hailed from the West Coast and not from the president’s own winery in central Virginia.

[The state dinner menu: Seasonal and modern, with no Trump wines in sight]

After dinner, the Washington National Opera entertained guests. Another big fan of opera? Jacqueline Kennedy, one of the past first ladies who Mrs. Trump has said she admires (the other being Michelle Obama).

The night was a success for the Trumps as much as for the Macrons — two couples that, according to the French president’s own toast, have disrupted the establishment. “On both sides of the ocean,” Macron said, “some two years ago very few would have bet on us being here together today. But as matter of fact, we share the same determination and the willingness.”

A D.C. federal judge has delivered the toughest blow yet to Trump administration efforts to end deportation protections for young undocumented immigrants, ordering the government to continue the Obama-era program and — for the first time since announcing it would end — reopen it to new applicants.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates on Tuesday called the government’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program “virtually unexplained” and therefore “unlawful.” However, he stayed his ruling for 90 days to give the Department of Homeland Security a chance to provide more solid reasoning for ending the program.

Bates is the third judge to rule against Trump administration attempts to rescind DACA, which provides two-year, renewable work permits and deportation protections for about 690,000 “dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children.

In his decision, Bates said the decision to phase out the program starting in March “was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

“Each day that the agency delays is a day that aliens who might otherwise be eligible for initial grants of DACA benefits are exposed to removal because of an unlawful agency action,” Bates wrote.

Federal judges in California and New York have also blocked the administration’s plans on those grounds, and ordered the administration to renew work permits for immigrants enrolled in the program.

But the ruling by Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, is far more expansive: If the government does not come up with a better explanation within 90 days, he will rescind the government memo that terminated the program and require Homeland Security to enroll new applicants, as well. Thousands could be eligible to apply.

The cases were brought by the NAACP, Microsoft, Princeton University and a student.

“We are pleased and gratified . . . but we’re not out of the woods yet,” said Bradford Berry, general counsel for the NAACP. “The government still has an opportunity to try to save their rescission of the program.”

Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber added that “While the decision does not fully resolve the uncertainty facing DACA beneficiaries, it unequivocally rejects the rationale the government has offered for ending the program and makes clear that the DHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously.”

Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, said, “We hope this decision will help provide new incentive for the legislative solution the country and these individuals so clearly deserve. As the business community has come to appreciate, a lasting solution for the country’s dreamers is both an economic imperative and a humanitarian necessity.”

The Trump administration said it is reviewing the decision. In a statement, the Justice Department pointed out that a similar Obama-era program for immigrant parents failed to survive a court challenge, and said ending DACA was part of its efforts to protect the border and enforce the rule of law.

“Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend benefits to this same group of illegal aliens,” spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement. “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position.”

A federal judge in Maryland recently ruled in favor of the government in a different DACA case.

The Trump administration says it decided to end DACA because Texas and other states had threatened to sue over it, and the government believed the program would not survive a court challenge. Bates ruled that the government’s “meager legal reasoning” — and the threat of a lawsuit — did not justify terminating the program.

Congress failed to pass legislation this year protecting DACA recipients and other dreamers. Trump had hoped to use the young immigrants as a bargaining chip in the last round of budget negotiations, offering legal residency for them in exchange for money for a border wall and strict new immigration limits.

After negotiations collapsed, he declared DACA “dead.”

His administration this year has renewed more than 55,000 work permits for immigrants enrolled in the program, as the courts required.

The program has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, allowing them to get driver’s licenses, qualify for in-state tuition, buy homes and attend college and graduate school. They must meet educational and residency requirements and cannot have serious criminal records.

Read more:

Federal judge weighs ordering administration to restart DACA