Ruling in travel ban leaves myriad questions unanswered


"It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective", he said in a statement.

"As president, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm", Trump wrote, calling his efforts to limit entry into the country a "suspension" instead of a ban.

The justices at the highest USA court narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked Trump's March 6 executive order.

In reinstating part of the president's order on Monday, the Supreme Court said those without an established, bona fide tie to a person, school, workplace, university or other entity in the United States could be temporarily barred from the country. The justices will hear full arguments on the case in October.

"The court went out of its way to not tip its hand as to how it will rule on the ultimate issue, which is whether the president has the power to do this".

"How individuals will prove such a (bona fide) relationship, and whether the burden of proof will be on the government or the individuals seeking entry, remains to be seen", Yale-Loehr agreed.

People leave the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 26, 2017, as justices issued their final rulings for the term.

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are USA permanent residents, known as green card holders.

"If an officer uses their discretion as to not allow them to enter because they belong to these particular countries, we don't know how that is going to be handled at customs or as they try to enter the United States", he said.

On Monday, Chin interpreted the Supreme Court's action to mean that Elshikh's family can still enter the country. The path to entry into the United States for immigrants and refugees from the affected nations, if they don't have existing ties to the USA - either through family, schools or employment - just became considerably harder.

Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project in Seattle, said this exemption covers a broad swath of people. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, "the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the objective of evading" the travel ban.

Two US appeals courts upheld lower court decisions halting the ban to allow legal challenges on the basis of religious discrimination.

Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.

Did all the court's justices agree with their ruling?

"But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security".

As the nation's high court revived Trump's travel ban, which lower courts sidetracked by injunction earlier this year, its 16-page order revived debate for and against the controversial executive order.

The Trump administration said the ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries.

The administration has argued that the ban would not go into effect until court orders blocking each provision were lifted. But if a citizen of one of the aforementioned six countries has a family member in the United States, they can bypass this ban.

But the decision nonetheless marks a win for the Republican leader, who has insisted the ban is necessary for national security, despite criticism that it singles out Muslims in violation of the USA constitution.

The nations affected by the ban were Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Iran, while Trump's order also called for a 120-day suspension on refugee admissions.

His lawyers told courts that the new order was written to respond to the 9th Circuit's concerns, but new lawsuits were immediately filed, and federal judges once again stopped the implementation.