In agreeing to let the Trump administration in large part follow through with the President's travel ban, pending full arguments and a final decision in the fall, the Supreme Court struck a sane temporary balance.
Blackman also noted that the decisions of the 4th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, which upheld injunctions blocking the order, will be vacated if the high court dismisses the case for mootness, a development many anticipate.
And given the timeline, the proposed 90 and 120-day terms of the ban will have expired before the case is argued before the Supreme Court, the justices seemed to be saying that the business of the ban might be moot by the time the case is argued in October.
David Levine, a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of Law, said the justices likely will not sidestep a ruling on the executive order on those grounds.More news: AirAsia flight turns back to Perth with 'technical issue'
"Based on those examples, an global student from one of the six affected countries who is already in the United States should be able to leave for the summer and return", said the statement, issued by an attorney from immigration law firm Miller Mayer.
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". "It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective". He emphasized the national security rationale for the original travel ban, saying that he "cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm" and that his "number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe".
"At issue with the ban were specifically people who had zero connection to the United States", he said.
Either way, McLawson said attorneys will be on hand to assist any travelers who may need assistance as the ban takes effect.More news: Blake Griffin opts out of Clippers contract
The court ruled that Trump may bar people from six majority Muslim countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - if they have no "bona fide" relationship to the U.S. Those that have established ties will be allowed to continue entering the country, which covers the majority of visitors from those countries.
Those who have been working to stop the order, said they hoped the highest court ultimately agreed with those lower rulings that had said the action was unconstitutional.
"As President, I can not allow people into our country who want to do us harm", President Trump said in a statement, via CNN. The nonprofit organization is made up of Utah lawyers and community leaders who volunteer their time and expertise to defend refugees' rights.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation, claimed the decision "ignores the Islamophobic origins of the policy" and emboldened Islamophobes in the Trump administration.More news: Walmart may bid on Whole Foods
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 meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States. It is unclear whether the move will result in the same chaotic scenes at airports in the United States and around the world as were seen when the order first came into effect earlier this year. Much has changed since the initial ban rolled out in late January, leading to a weekend of chaos and protest at SeaTac Airport. Three justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the travel ban to take effect as written.