After a third version of President Donald Trump's so-called "travel ban" was blocked Tuesday, a vocal critic in Congress said Trump "just can't take a hint."
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted the president's "illegal Muslim ban is now 0 for 3 vs the Constitution."
Others also had "0 for 3" comments. But, the comments aren't quite accurate.
That's because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on any of Trump's three travel orders — mainly because he's issued so many.
There was Trump's first order in January, a revised version in March and then a third version in September.
Since each new travel restriction has essentially canceled out the previous one, cases haven't had time to make it all the way to the highest court before they become non-factors.
Related Story
Trump's Judicial Impact Goes Way Beyond The Supreme Court
Another challenge to Warren's "0 for 3" claim — the federal judge who blocked Trump's latest version didn't say whether or not the order was constitutional.
The Washington Post notes the judge, "limited his analysis to whether Trump had exceeded the authority Congress has given the president to impose restrictions on those wanting to enter the United States."
The Justice Department has already said it'll appeal the latest block on Trump's "tailored travel restrictions."
And those restrictions are permanent, so there's a greater chance the case will reach the Supreme Court before the issue is moot.
The justices have final say on what the Constitution allows. And considering most of the Supreme Court now leans conservative, Trump may have the advantage.
