That is because the high court effectively allowed Trump to ban from coming to the United States only citizens of six majority-Muslim countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” It also nudged the president to complete his promised review of vetting procedures, which might mean the issue is resolved by the time the court is set to fully consider the ban in its October term.
For now, if you are not a U.S. citizen and have a relative here, have been hired by a U.S. employer or admitted to an American university, you can still probably get a visa. But if you’re applying cold as a visitor or through the diversity visa program, you probably can’t.”
Court's travel ban ruling gives Trump a boost, changes media narrative
“Nine justices delivered a reminder yesterday of why the Supreme Court was such an important campaign issue.
In allowing key parts of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect, the high court—with help from Trump’s man Neil Gorsuch—upended the conventional wisdom on the case. After all, in agreeing to hear the case in October, the justices could have left the temporary stay in place pending a final ruling.
Instead, they sent a strong signal to the appellate courts that they had gone too far in blocking the executive order—and enabled the president to claim “a clear victory for our national security.”
But the court also obliterated the existing media narrative, which is that the travel ban was a badly botched, unconstitutional overreach by Trump.”
Supreme Court's compromise on travel ban raises big questions for US tourism industry
“After battling through lower courts, a watered down version of the travel ban was re-instated Monday, following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear appeals on the ban this October. In the meantime, a limited version will be in effect in as little as 72 hours.
Although President Trump is claiming it as a victory, this iteration is far more limited than the two previous versions. Restricting travel from six majority Muslim countries for 90 days and suspending the country’s refugee program for 120 days, the latest version only effects people without any connections to the US.”
Trump applauds Supreme Court, feels ‘gratified’ by ruling to revive travel ban
“The Supreme Court revived President Trump’s extreme vetting travel ban Monday, ruling that much of it can go into effect — and along the way delivering an implicit rebuke to the army of lower-court judges who blasted the president as anti-Muslim.
In a unanimous unsigned ruling, the justices said the president has important national security powers that the courts must respect and ruled that he likely has the power to deny entry to broad categories of would-be visitors and immigrants.
But the justices said those who already have a connection to the U.S. — either a job offer, an admission to an educational program or a close family connection — will be exempted from the 90-day ban on travel from six countries as well as the 120-day pause on refugees.
Minutes after the ruling, both sides were fighting over what that meant.”
Supreme Court ruling on travel ban sparks fear, frustration — and joy — in Southern California
“Muslim Americans in Southern California described the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to allow a temporary, partial version of the Trump administration’s travel ban as disappointing and “irrational,” but noted that until the issue gets a full hearing later this year it’s unclear how it will play out.
The ruling was also met with a chorus of bravos from Trump supporters who say it will make America safer, with additional vetting of who gets in and who doesn’t.
Both sides are gearing up for what’s next.”
SCOTUS splits the travel ban baby
“The Supreme Court’s ruling on Donald Trump’s travel ban is like an optical illusion: Your perception of it changes depending on your vantage point. To Trump and his allies, the decision looks like total vindication for the administration, a move that allows its long-delayed executive order to take effect. To left-leaning analysts, it’s a clever political compromise that still protects many of the refugees and foreign nationals who would’ve been excluded by the ban.
There’s a reason for these wildly differing takes: The decision itself is confusing and ambiguous. That’s because the court ruled only on the injunction and thus dodged the central issue: the legality of the order and the president’s authority to pass it. The court’s baby-splitting shields the president and his opponents from an outright loss or a clear-cut victory. But it doesn’t make much sense as a matter of law. It preserves the authority of the Supreme Court to say what the law is—even though, by its own terms, it fails to say what the law is.”