"I think it's a vast exaggeration to say this is a victory for the president," Jennifer Gordon, a professor of law at Fordham University who focuses on immigration was quoted as saying.
Noting that at least five justices agreed on the need to grant visas to individuals with a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States", Gordon argued that the court's decision reflected a seemingly majority consensus that the Trump administration could not implement an outright ban on immigrants from the six-Muslim countries.
"In fact, you might read it as a signal " that the president might well lose on this," she said.
In essence, the court agreed to hear oral arguments on the merits of the executive order. At least three conservative justices on the bench -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch -- would have preferred to have allowed the travel ban to go into full effect, but ultimately the court significantly narrowed the scope of Trump's order.
Trump's controversial Muslim Ban orders
President Trump first signed an executive order on this issue in January 27, a week after he became President. In addition to the scenes of chaos at airports, the signing of the order also triggered widespread protests from those opposed to Mr Trump's actions. Several courts said the ban was unconstitutional and put it on hold.
The President then signed a second order in early March that excluded Iraq from the list of countries.
During the 2016 presidential race, Trump campaigned for "a total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States. The travel ban was a signature policy of Trump's first few months as president.
Last month, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia upheld a district judge in Maryland who blocked Trump's order. The appeals court, in a 10-3 decision, said the executive order reflected an unconstitutional discrimination based on religion. Its opinion cited Trump's campaign pledge to enact a "Muslim ban."
Shortly afterward, the 9th Circuit Court in California upheld a district judge in Hawaii and ruled Trump's order was illegal because the president did not demonstrate a threat to national security.
Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, who successfully challenged the ban in lower courts, said that students from affected countries due to attend the University of Hawaii would still be able to do so.
Top Democrats voiced concern that the court had enabled Trump to at least partially see through his pledge to ban both Muslims and Syrian refugees from the US. "The Trump Administration has consistently shown that discrimination, not national security, is the purpose of this ban," said Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader. "The Supreme Court's move to largely lift the injunctions against the open prejudice of the Muslim and refugee ban sends the wrong message to our partners on the front lines of the fight against terror," she added. "We hope that the Court will ultimately come to the only conclusion consistent with our values, our national defense and the Constitution."
(Article changed on June 27, 2017 at 16:30)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
