People leave the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 26, 2017, as justices issued their final rulings for the term.
The Supreme Court's criteria for who can be barred from entering the United States under President Donald Trump's travel ban may confuse the USA officials overseas charged with implementing it and trigger a new round of lawsuits, experts said.
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito Jr. and Thomas wrote a three-page opinion saying they would have allowed Trump's travel ban to take effect fully, without regard to a foreign national's connection to the United States.
But much remains murky: What exactly is a bona fide relationship? The president got a little help to protect the nation from terrorists, schoolyard safety was held to be as important for children in private schools as in public schools, and the court hinted that help might be on the way for a Colorado wedding-cake baker who doesn't want to join the celebration of same-sex weddings.
What does this travel ban do?
The court said it would hear the legal dispute in the fall, but acknowledged the case may be moot by then because the 90-day ban will have expired. The administration won a limited victory.
Trump said the top court's ruling "allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective".
But the other six kept blocking it as it applies to those traveling to the USA on employment, student or family immigrant visas as well as other cases where the traveler can show a "bona fide" connection to the U.S.
Mr Trump signed an executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries within his first week in office, a move that caused chaos at airports across the country and prompted multiple law suits.
"I wish the court would have gone even further and reinstated the executive order in its entirety, but this is a good start". A leaked Department of Homeland Security document also supported that claim, saying that radicalized extremists who want to carry out attacks in the USA mostly become radicalized only after spending several years in the country.
If U.S. citizens claim close relatives from one of the targeted countries, they will be able to do so. "So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience".
What's not bona fide? "2c", the court said, referring to the key clause in the travel ban order.
A federal judge blocked it eight days later, an order that was upheld by a 9th circuit panel.
Most of the people visiting from the six countries singled out for exclusion by the Trump administration, he noted, traveled for precisely the reasons the supreme court said should still be permissible. That order was blocked by the courts and the administration revised it to address some of the legal concerns. "The hotel is a USA entity", Gorsky said. Those situations describe most of the visa applications, a win for those groups seeking to overturn the ban. "What's more hard is if you're coming in on a tourist visa".
The two cases before the court were Trump vs. Hawaii and Trump vs. The ban would apply to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
"Allowing parts of the ban to go into effect with respect to some immigrants and refugees is disappointing." says Michal Rosenn, general counsel at Kickstarter, said in a statement provided to CNN Tech.
"The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down", Jadwat said in a statement.