Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The original ban in January provoked mass protests at American airports

US President Donald Trump has welcomed a Supreme Court ruling allowing his travel ban to be partly reinstated as a "victory for our national security".

America's highest court also granted a White House request allowing part of its refugee ban to go into effect.

The justices said they would consider in October whether the president's policy should be upheld or struck down.

Mr Trump seeks to place a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.

The president welcomed the ruling's qualified authorisation to bar visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, which he described as "terror-prone countries".

"As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm," he added.

Mr Trump has already said the ban would take effect within 72 hours of court approval.

What does the ruling say?

The Supreme Court said in Monday's decision: "In practical terms, this means that [the executive order] may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

"All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the executive order]."

The ruling also said it would permit a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US to go into effect, allowing the government to bar entry to refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity.

A Trump win - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

Mark this down as a win for Donald Trump. The path to entry into the US for immigrants and refugees from the affected nations, if they don't have existing ties to the US - either through family, schools or employment - just became considerably harder.

The decision marks a reaffirmation of the sweeping powers the president has traditionally been granted by the courts in areas of national security. There was fear in some quarters that the administration's ham-fisted implementation of its immigration policy could do lasting damage to the president's prerogatives. That appears not to be the case.

The government, the justices write, has a "compelling need to provide for the nation's security". That includes being able to close the borders based on an evaluation of the potential of foreign threats - at least for now.

The Supreme Court justices will fully consider the arguments on both sides next autumn. Of course, by that time it may not matter. The administration has three months to conduct its "executive review" of immigration policy and devise new guidelines.

In the meantime, the gates to America just got a bit smaller.

Big win for Trump and his travel ban

What does 'bona fide' relationship mean?

The ruling clarifies that those who would be deemed to have such a relationship would include a foreign national who wishes to enter the US to live with or visit a family member, a student at an American university, an employee of a US company, or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.

This would not apply, it said, to "someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid [the executive order].

"For example, a non-profit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Muslim students on Trump ban: 'I don't belong here'

Are there any divisions on the court?

Yes. Three of the court's conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - wrote that they would have allowed the travel ban to go into full effect.

Justice Thomas said the government's interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.

Mr Trump restored a 5-4 conservative majority to the Supreme Court when his nominee, Justice Gorsuch, joined its bench in April.

There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.

What has the reaction been?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions says "the threat to our national security is real and becoming increasingly dangerous". He has welcomed the decision, saying it is "an important step towards restoring the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government."

Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, says that it remains to be decided if the ban is constitutional, but that the courts which have looked at the measure have been against it: "[But] in practical terms most of the people who stood to be affected by the ban will still be allowed to come in."

David Miliband, president of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), has urged the government to start a review of its vetting process. "The court's decision threatens damage to vulnerable people waiting to come to the US: people with urgent medical conditions blocked, innocent people left adrift, all of whom have been extensively vetted."

What did lower courts say?

The US president insisted his ban was necessary for national security amid a slew of terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. However, critics called the policy un-American and Islamophobic, and the lower courts broadly seemed to agree.

The president's policy was left in limbo after it was struck down by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland days following its issuance on 6 March.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said in May the ban was "rooted in religious animus" toward Muslims.

The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in June: "National security is not a 'talismanic incantation' that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power."

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption A Yemeni woman hugs her mother at a Virginia airport in February after courts granted a temporary stay on President Trump's order

Why did Trump revise the order?

The original ban, released on 27 January, provoked mass protests at American airports.

It included Iraq among nations whose travellers would be barred from the US, and imposed a full ban on refugees from Syria.

The president issued a revised version with a narrower scope on 6 March to overcome some of the legal problems.

But Mr Trump was unhappy about having to do so, calling it a "watered down, politically correct" version of the first one.</s>The Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his temporary travel bans from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no connection to the United States while agreeing to hear his appeals in the closely watched legal fight.

The court, which narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked his March 6 executive order, said it would hear arguments on the legality of one of Trump's signature policies in his first months as president in the court's next term, which starts in October.

The justices granted parts of his administration's emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.

The court said that the travel ban will go into effect "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the travel ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals abroad and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry.

But the court said the injunctions were too broad to also include barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said.

The court also said it would allow a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect on the same grounds, allowing the government to exclude from the United States refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity.

Three of the court's conservatives said they would have granted Trump's request in full, including Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch.

The case is Trump's first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.

The March 6 order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to enable the government to implement stronger vetting procedures. It was blocked by federal judges before going into effect on March 16 as planned.

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But critics have called the order a mean-spirited, intolerant and un-American "Muslim ban."

The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.

Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 order issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts. The revised order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, which also included Iraq among the nations targeted and a full ban on refugees from Syria. The revised order also jettisoned language that gave preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, which critics said could be taken as favoring Christians and other religious groups over Muslims.

Trump has called the March order a "watered down, politically correct" version of the January one. But the order still embodied his "America First" nationalist message and reflected his views of the dangers posed to the United States by certain immigrants and visitors.

The administration has said the travel ban is needed to allow time to implement stronger vetting measures, although it has already rolled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants.</s>On the closing day of its current term, the Supreme Court today handed Donald Trump a bit of good news as the Justices said they will hear on the legality of the President’s travel ban next fall. With some of the stay against what has been called Travel Ban 2.0 lifted, arguments will be held right at the beginning of SCOTUS’ next term in October. Challenged and halted in various lower jurisdictions, Trump’s controversial revised executive order limited travel from six predominantly Muslim countries to the U.S.

Likely to be hailed as a victory by the former Celebrity Apprentice host in the inevitable tweet, SCOTUS’s order is actually a mixed result for the Administration and for those opposing the travel ban. Upholding the current injunction against the so-called Muslim ban in part and lifted it in other regards, the Supreme Courts’ 16-page order says that the stay from the Appeals Courts is now lifted for foreign nationals who have a “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States” (read it here). While that implies that visitors from Iran, Libya,Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen with immediate family Stateside, employment offers or educational opportunities will be allowed into the county, definitions of the terminology that SCOTUS used could see new legal battles over the summer.

The ACLU have already made it clear that will fight the travel ban, as they have been since its first version was signed by Trump mere days after he took office:

Of course, this could all be moot as the 90-day travel ban could actually have expired by the time the High Court hears the case. All of which could see the June 1 filed petition by the government booted in the fall. The decision was a 6-3 breakdown in the SCOTUS, with Justice Clarence Thomas penning the dissent that saw the compromise as too confusing and the full ban should have gone into effect. Justice Thomas was joined by Justice Samuel Alito and Trump appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch in the dissent.

First signed on January 27 in the early days of the Trump administration and immediately leading to chaos and protests at airports and elsewhere all over the United States and legal challenges. With Hollywood outrage and a series of court losses as various state attorney generals took on the ban, a second order was signed by the President on March 6. Called a “travel ban” by the President himself even when his own lawyers were saying it wasn’t, the order seeks to halt new visas from Iran, Libya,Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days, and suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days. It also includes increased vetting procedures for travelers into America.

Since March, Trump has said that the revised travel ban was too watered down and wished that the initial version had gone forward. With today’s Supreme Court’ action anticipated in some form or another, a pre-emptive June 14 memorandum inked by President Trump authorizes implementing part of the ban within the next three days, in part. If past protests are any indication, expect the airports to be even more packed than usual over this upcoming almost Independence Day weekend.</s>Immigration rights activists chant during their May Day march in Washington to the White House to voice opposition to President Donald Trump's immigration policies on May 1, 2017. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to implement much of its revised travel ban, but also agreed to review the legality of the controversial executive order in October.

The justices lifted injunctions from two federal appeals courts that had blocked the order, which seeks to stop foreign travelers from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days and suspend all refugees from entering the United States for 120 days. The rulings had stymied one of President Donald Trump’s major policy initiatives in his first months in office — moves that he argued are key for national security.

But the Supreme Court did limit the scope of implementing the ban signed in March. The justices ruled that the Trump administration could not enforce the ban against foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen or refugees from around the world who have a credible claim of a close familial relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

That would include those seeking to enter the country to live with or visit a family member, the court wrote in a decisionissued in a way that does not attribute it to any particular justice. Students who have been admitted to a university in the U.S., a worker who accepted employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience will also be admitted under the court’s ruling.

Trump praised the ruling, declaring in a statement that it is “a clear victory for our national security.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that the court’s decision “recognizes that the Executive has the responsibility to protect the safety and security of the American people under the Constitution of the United States and its laws.”

Opponents of the ban, however, said they hoped it would affect a small number of immigrants and refugees.

“This order, properly construed, should really allow for only the narrowest implementation of any part of the ban,” Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrant’s Rights Project, said. “It’s going to be really important for us over this intervening period to make sure the government abides by the rules.”

Ahead of the court’s ruling, Trump issued updated guidance earlier this month for how his Cabinet secretaries should implement the executive order if the justices opted to lift an injunction blocking the ban. Under his memorandum, sections of the travel ban allowed by the court will take effect 72 hours from the time of the ruling.

The guidance said the effective dates for the order would be changed according to the time the injunction is lifted, Trump said in a memorandum to the attorney general, director of national intelligence and secretaries of State and Homeland Security.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissent joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch, wrote that he would have allowed the government to enforce the travel ban in full.

“And I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits — that is, that the judgments below will be reversed,” Thomas wrote.

The decision to allow the revised travel ban required the agreement of at least five justices and happened without oral arguments and out of the view of the public. It took only four justices to agree to hear the case.

The case draws the justices into a political and legal showdown over the ban that was a key part of Trump’s presidential campaign. But it also means the 90-day ban on travelers from majority-Muslim countries will have run its course by the time the justices hear the case.

The ACLU, which has fought the ban in court, said it is ready. “We’ll see him in court. #NoMuslimBanEVER,” the ACLU tweeted.

Two federal appeals courts that had blocked the travel ban reached the same conclusion in different ways. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Virginia found the ban was likely unconstitutional in how it treats Muslims, while the 9th Circuit in San Francisco found Trump’s order exceeded his authority over immigration policy given to him by Congress.

Justice Department lawyers had urged the Supreme Court, if it wouldn’t immediately allow the government to implement the executive order, to consider an appeal on an expedited schedule. The justices obliged, agreeing to hear oral arguments in October, in the first sitting after its annual three-month summer recess starting Monday.

The administration argued in its application that preventing Trump from “effectuating his national-security judgment will continue to cause irreparable harm to the interests of the government and the public.”

The revised travel ban was Trump’s response to the botched rollout of his initial executive order in January, which sparked protests around the world.

The travel ban explains that the 90-day pause in travelers from the majority-Muslim countries is necessary, in part, to make sure dangerous individuals don’t enter the United States while the president works to establish adequate standards “to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists.”

The full 4th Circuit sided with advocacy groups who argued the order violates religious protections in the First Amendment that the government should not favor one religion over another. The 10-3 majority opinion relied on statements Trump made about on the campaign trail about a “Muslim ban” and other public comments

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that the president fell short of a statutory requirement to show that current protocols for entry of nationals from those countries would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Similarly, the 9th Circuit found that the challengers are likely to succeed because the executive order does not reveal any threat or harm to warrant suspension of all refugees for 120 days, and disregarded the procedures for setting annual admissions of refugees at 50,000, or less than half of the previous year.

The cases are Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, Docket No. 16-1436, and Trump v. Hawaii, Docket No. 16-1540.</s>Washington, United States | AFP | The US Supreme Court on Monday partially reinstated Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban targeting citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries, prompting the president to claim a victory for national security.

The court said it would examine the case in full in October but said the ban could now be enforced for travelers from the targeted countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The court tempered its ruling by saying the ban could not be implemented for now against people who have personal links to the US, citing the examples of foreign nationals wishing to visit family or students accepted to attend university.

But the Supreme Court’s 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 US constitution.

Trump had suffered a series of judicial defeats over the ban, with two federal appeals courts maintaining injunctions on it by arguing that his executive order discriminated against travelers based on their nationality.

Reacting to Monday’s ruling, Trump said he felt vindicated by what he called “a clear victory for our national security.”

“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 cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm.”

But opponents welcomed the fact that the court had tempered the reach of the ban, as well as the prospect of the case being heard in the fall.

David Cole, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling’s impact would be limited and the real crunch would come in October.

The judges “essentially adopted a middle course” between the government’s request to uphold Trump’s order and the ACLU’s appeals to stay the ban, he told AFP.

“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.”

The New York Immigration Coalition, another fierce opponent, said the ruling created more confusion by referring to ‘bona fide relationship’ which “agencies and individuals will struggle to make sense of.”

Trump’s revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar from US entry travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days.

The original measure, issued by executive order in January and almost immediately blocked by the courts, also included Iraq and an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

Earlier this month, Trump said in a presidential memorandum that the travel ban could be expected to go into effect within 72 hours of relevant court rulings.

But rights groups said they did not expect any chaos at airports, as was seen when the first executive order was put in place.

In an ruling earlier this month, the three justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that “immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show.”

The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the injunctions on the ban, saying the government could enforce its measure against “foreign nationals unconnected to the United States” without causing injury to the parties who filed suit.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the administration was confident that it would prevail when the nation’s top judges hear the case in full.

“Groups like ISIS (the Islamic State group) and Al-Qaeda seek to sow chaos and destruction in our country, and often operate from war-torn and failed countries,” he said.

“It is crucial that we properly vet those seeking to come to America from these locations, and failing to do so puts us all in danger.”

The countries targeted were on a list drawn up by Barack Obama’s government of places whose authorities had very poor data on their own citizens, making it difficult to vet the identities of visa applicants.

While the ban itself did not single out Muslims, judges in lower courts had cited Trump’s repeated statements during last year’s presidential race that he intended to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

After the initial legal setback for the ban, the White House slightly revised the order to try to address concerns raised in the courts, but the second measure also was shot down.

Even without the ban in place, arrivals from the six countries has dropped sharply, in part due to the “extreme vetting” approach of US authorities, toughening their scrutiny of visa applicants.

Arrivals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were down by nearly half in March and April from a year ago — 6,372 for the two months compared to 12,100 in 2016, according to recent official data.</s>WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Monday partially reinstated President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban targeting citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries, before examining the case in full this autumn.

The travel ban -- which was put on hold by lower court rulings -- will apply to those "who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," until the court hears the case in October, the justices ruled.

The decision is 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 US constitution.

Trump had suffered a series of stinging judicial setbacks over the measure, with two federal appeals courts maintaining injunctions on the ban.

Those courts had argued the president had overstepped his authority, and that his executive order discriminated against travelers based on their nationality.

"Immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show," the three justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling earlier this month.

"National security is not a 'talismanic incantation' that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power," they added.

The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of those injunctions, saying the government could enforce its measure against "foreign nationals unconnected to the United States" without causing injury to the parties who filed suit.

Conversely, those with a "close familial relationship" in the US are not affected.

The revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar from US entry travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days.

The original measure, issued by executive order in January, also included Iraq on the list of targeted countries and had imposed an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.</s>Because President Donald Trump failed to devise a reasonable and effective short-term travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in Monday to help. And a good thing too. The checks-and-balances system exists to handle these moments.

Here we have a mess that goes back to the first week of Trump's presidency, when he issued a sweeping executive order on national security grounds that would have shut down travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days. The order, meant to protect America from terrorism, was overly broad. The rollout was thoroughly botched too. Remember those chaotic scenes from O'Hare and other airports when some legal U.S. residents were detained?

Federal courts blocked the program, which represented the first step in guiding Trump back onto solid constitutional ground. Trump tried again with a narrower order targeting citizens of six countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (Iraq was omitted). That order also was blocked — until the Supreme Court's Monday action.

The high court said it will hear arguments on the ban in October, but until then split the difference between Trump's wishes and lower court concerns: The ban on visitors from six countries can be enforced, except on individuals who have an ongoing relationship with the United States. They still can enter. Those individuals include, for example, someone with close family here or acceptance to an American university. The same ground rules apply to another part of the order putting a 120-day stop to the U.S. program for admitting refugees.

Trump has legitimate cause to look closely at how the U.S. screens travelers and refugees to determine whether the system keeps the country safe or has deficiencies. The profile of a would-be terrorist has changed since the rise of Islamic State, with Europe suffering a number of serious attacks by individuals who had connections to Syria. Trump's decision to freeze travel from certain countries and suspend refugee arrivals could have been within his purview, if he had implemented his order responsibly. He didn't.

The problem with Trump's effort is that it looked like the U.S. government was discriminating against a broad group of people based on their religion, in violation of the First Amendment. Trump, in the eyes of federal courts in Hawaii and Maryland, wasn't so much protecting America as targeting Muslims. Both courts reached their conclusions in March in part by examining Trump's record as a candidate, which included his 2015 statement "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Appeals courts upheld the rulings, with one questioning whether Trump's actions breached the scope of authority granted by Congress.

The issue of whether one can divine a presidential order's intent by parsing a presidential candidate's heated rhetoric is an interesting one, but the Supreme Court may not even need to go there. We don't like Trump's bombast, including his Twitter rants, because he often sounds irresponsible. But often his verbosity is irrelevant to his job responsibilities. In this situation, the details of Trump's immigration order are what count. Lower courts saw enough to sideline Trump's order. The Supreme Court will hear the full arguments. In the meantime, the administration doesn't have to sit on its hands. Officials can get on with the task of vetting U.S. immigration policy while blocking from entry foreigners without any U.S. ties.

From a national security perspective, Trump could have been done with this process by now. If the president had gotten the details right the first time, the U.S. could have been admitting foreigners under newly tightened rules. Trump failed that early test of issuing rules within the confines of the law. Now the Supreme Court will have its say.

Join the discussion on Twitter @Trib_Ed_Board and on Facebook.

Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.</s>The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States while agreeing to decide this fall the legality of the order.

The case represents a major test of presidential powers. The justices, in their unsigned decision, granted parts of the Trump administration’s emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.

The court, which narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked his March 6 executive order, said it would hear arguments in October on the lawfulness of one of Trump’s signature policies in his first months as president

Explainer: How do U.S. courts work? A map of the Trump travel ban’s long journey

The March 6 order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees to enable the government to implement stronger vetting procedures. It was blocked by federal judges before going into effect on March 16 as planned.

Both bans are now due to partly go into effect in 72 hours, based on a memorandum issued by the Trump administration on June 14.

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are U.S. permanent residents, known as green card holders. 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 U.S. citizen, or for “significant business or professional obligations.” Refugees “in transit” and already approved would have been able to travel to the United States under the executive order.

The case is Trump’s first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April.

There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.

Three of the court’s conservatives said they would have granted Trump’s request to reinstate the order in full, including Gorsuch. Justice Clarence Thomas warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have connection to the U.S. and those who do not will prove unworkable.

“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas wrote.

The justices said that the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” That indicates that people from the six countries and refugees who have family, business or other ties would not be barred from entry. But those seeking visas to enter the United States with no such ties could be barred.

The decision endorsed the Trump administration’s contention that the president deserves greater deference from the courts on national security matters.

The court said that Trump’s executive order distinguished between foreigners who have “some connection to this country” and those who do not, and said the government had committed to review cases for those with some connection to the United States on a case-by-case basis.

The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals abroad and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry.

But the court said the injunctions were too broad to also include barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all. “Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national,” the court said.

The court handled the refugee ban in a similar way, allowing the government to exclude from the United States refugee claimants who do not have any “bona fide relationship” with an American individual or entity.

Thomas said this will lead to a flood of litigation as courts try to figure out who has a “bona fide relationship” with the United States.

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But critics have called the order a mean-spirited, intolerant and un-American “Muslim ban.”

The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.

Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 order issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts. The revised order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, which also included Iraq among the nations targeted and a full ban on refugees from Syria. The revised order also jettisoned language that gave preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, which critics said could be taken as favoring Christians and other religious groups over Muslims.

Trump has called the March order a “watered down, politically correct” version of the January one. But the order still embodied his “America First” nationalist message and reflected his views of the dangers posed to the United States by certain immigrants and visitors.

The administration has said the travel ban is needed to allow time to implement stronger vetting measures, although it has already rolled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants.</s>The U.S. Supreme Court has handed a victory to President Donald Trump by narrowing the scope of lower court rulings that blocked his travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries and agreeing to hear his appeals in the cases.

The court says it would hear arguments on the legality of one of Trump’s signature policies in his first months as president in its next term, which starts in October.

The justices granted parts of his administration’s emergency request to put the March the 6th executive order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.

It would also partly allow a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the U.S. to go into effect.</s>The Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s temporary bans on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no connection to the United States.

The court handed a victory to President Trump on Monday in its ruling in which it agreed to hear his appeals in the closely watched legal fight.

It said it would hear arguments on the legality of one of Trump’s signature policies in his first months as president in the court’s next term, which starts in October.

The apex court granted parts of his administration’s emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.

It said that the travel ban would go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
The Supreme Court of the United States partially reinstates President Donald Trump's travel ban and invalidates certain injunctions that were put on the order by two federal appeals courts earlier. Final oral hearings concerning the legality of the Executive Order 13780 will be held in October 2017 at the Supreme Court.