The Supreme Court is allowing travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to enter the USA if they have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States". "Think about how the people at the border, at airports are going to make that decision", said Page Pate, CNN legal analyst.
After the order was blocked by the courts, Trump issued a revised version on March 6, clarifying that the travel ban did not apply to legal permanent residents, who have a right to due process when the government tries to prevent their re-entry, or to current visa holders, whose hosts may have standing to sue.
It was a legal win for the administration - to an extent. The court also rejected President Trump's proffered anti-terrorism rationale for the travel ban "as a pretext for its religious goal".
What's a "bona fide" relationship?
Mr Gorsky said the standard is likely to sow confusion among USA consular officials who have to make visa decisions and could require another court decision to determine what constitutes a connection to the U.S. sufficient to allow entry.
"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".
"This decision is a true compromise", said Kari Hong, an immigration law expert at Boston College Law School.
The court's majority laid out the "bona fide" relationships it had in mind. For individuals, a close family relationship is required. That would include students who have been admitted to a USA school and workers who have accepted an offer of employment from an American company, the court said.
What's not bona fide? Could that be why they're not included in the travel ban?
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch found that guidance confusing and unworkable. "I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive", he said in a statement.
"But the court also obliterated the existing media narrative, which is that the travel ban was a badly botched, unconstitutional overreach by Trump".
The Supreme Court agreed to decide the legality of Trump's order in its next term, which begins in October. We believe that the exclusions of people from six Muslim-majority countries is discriminatory and does damage to academic institutions in the United States.
"We are relieved", Hetfield said.
The State Department and USA government now have no official definition for bona fide relationship and must come to a consensus by Thursday, per the Court's order.
"We will keep those traveling to the United States and partners in the travel industry informed as we implement the order in a professional, organized, and timely way", the statement said.
Trump's initial travel ban, issued without warning on a Friday in January, brought chaos and protests to airports nationwide as travelers from seven targeted countries were barred even if they had prior permission to come to the U.S. The State Department canceled up to 60,000 visas but later reversed that decision.
Q Does that mean that the President can block everyone from the six countries he identified as unsafe - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen?
The limited ban will take effect Thursday morning, the State Department said Monday. People looking for travel visas or refuge without US connections will not be granted entry.
"The court's ruling will leave refugees stranded in hard and unsafe situations overseas", said Hardy Vieux of the group Human Rights First. It further suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions program for 120 days (subject to case-by-case exceptions), and capped refugee entry into the U.S.at 50,000 people for this fiscal year.
A Yes. The definition of a "bona fide relationship" is not clear yet, according to opponents of the ban.
Second, the Court refused the government's request to stay the preliminary injunctions pending completion of that review.
When does it go into effect? The Supreme Court's reinstatement of the EO does not directly address this issue.
"The underlying issue of presidential power is too important and too likely to occur in the future", he said.