In the 9-0 ruling, justices will not allow the ban go into effect in cases where visitors can prove they have a "bonafide relationship with a person or an entity in the United States." Justices wrote that this includes a foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, students who have been admitted to a university, workers who have accepted an offer of employment from an American company, or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.
"An overt message of welcome that accompanies tough talk aimed at terrorists and visa overstayers would do a lot to sustain and grow the vast economic benefit that comes from worldwide travel to the U.S". That includes family members of US residents; students admitted to American universities; workers accepting a job offer in the USA; and speakers invited to address an American audience. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order. The Trump administration has been fighting back against lower court rulings that have struck down the travel ban.
In his statement Monday, Bishop José "Joe" Vásquez, the Chair of the of the U.S. Bishops' Conference (USCCB) Committee on Migration, lamented that the decision "will have human consequences". As President, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm. "And it's interesting that when Trump goes to places like Saudi Arabia, he seems to not want to ban everybody", Ellison said.
The Supreme Court will then decide whether the 90-day ban on people travelling to the United States from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen will be enforced. Those groups said they will send lawyers and monitors to American airports, where the initial, immediate implementation of the ban in January caused chaos and confusion. Who gets to decide?
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to win the legal case in the end. The Travel Ban, which was originally written to apply to foreign nationals visiting the United States from seven countries determined by the President to be risky, will only apply to six of those countries, as per a second Executive Order, and will only apply to individuals that do not have a sufficient, legitimate connection to USA residents or entities.
Mr Trump, though, hailed the high court's order as a "clear victory for our national security".
Attorney Greg Lawson of Sound Immigration says the problem is the definition of "bona fide relationship'".
Q&A: What does the reinstated travel ban mean for Washington state? A federal court blocked it about a week later.
"We fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its internal work and provided adequate notice to foreign governments", in 90 days.
"So, in the case of family, it seems pretty obvious", she said.
The president has denied the ban targets Muslims, but said it is needed "to protect the nation from terrorist activities" committed by citizens of the six countries.
The proposed travel ban has been a major point of contention between Trump and civil-rights groups, which say it was motivated by unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims.