"The court would only have granted this, they would only have allowed most of the travel ban to go into place if it thinks that at this point without fully briefing and argument the government is likely to succeed", said Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
The court, in effect, said that foreigners with ties or relationships in the United States would not be prohibited from entering the country. And we will have to be vigilant at the airports and other ports of entry as the EO is applied to travelers that border officials determine do not have "bona fide" relationships.
Trump's revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar from USA entry travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days.
In its opinion, the court partially reinstated Trump's temporary prohibition on refugees from any country, using criteria similar to that used in the travel ban. He has repeated that it was needed to block terrorists, citing attacks carried out by Islamist militants in major cities in Europe.
He says that the ban "doesn't increase anybody's security, unfortunately, and it's regrettable that. the citizens of the countries on the list have never taken part in any act of terrorism against the United States".
Opponents say the ban is unlawful, based on visitors' Muslim religion. Ahmed al-Nasi, an official in Yemen's Ministry of Expatriate Affairs, voiced disappointment. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could.
"During his campaign for the presidency a year ago, Trump had said he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States". Yet that is precisely what liberal majorities on both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal did in blocking the travel bans, and the Supreme Court is saying those rulings will not be the last judicial word.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she doesn't really do Twitter, but sometimes visits the site to check out what U.S. President Donald Trump has to say.
That means the measure will go into effect the morning of June 29.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a communique that it will provide more details regarding implementation of the ban after consulting with the State and Justice Departments.
"We will keep those traveling to the United States and partners in the travel industry informed as we implement the order in a professional, organized, and timely way", a State Department spokeswoman said.
"We are a nation that values acceptance and diversity, and in making this decision and putting this executive order back into effect, the Supreme Court is sending a very clear message and it's putting the executive's discriminatory policy back into effect".
Leon Fresco, deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation in President Barack Obama's Justice Department, said the effect would seem to be limited to two types of visa seekers who don't have family or other US ties: those seeking to come to the U.S.as visitors, or those seeking to enter through a lottery meant for people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S. The executive order also made waivers available for a foreign national seeking to enter the United States to resume work or study, visit a spouse, child or parent who is a USA citizen, or for "significant business or professional obligations".
Lower courts have all ruled in the couple's favor. And at least two current justices - swing-vote Anthony Kennedy and liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg - reportedly are contemplating retirement.
Likewise, the justices said, refugees can travel to the USA if they demonstrate those connections - contrary to the part of Trump's executive order suspending the nation's refugee program. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch indicated that they would have dissolved the injunctions entirely. But they said they are anxious about other immigrants, including refugees who may be desperate for help but lack US relations.