The justices will hear arguments in the case in October. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a "bona fide relationship", who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid (the order)".
The Court's refusal to hear Peruta is "a plausible indication that the court doesn't have an appetite for a Second Amendment case right now", says Joseph Blocher, a professor at Duke Law School.
The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked his March 6 executive order that Trump had said was needed to prevent terrorism in the United States, allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties such as family or business to the United States. To left-leaning analysts, it's a clever political compromise that still protects numerous refugees and foreign nationals who would've been excluded by the ban.
Thus, the decision will allow the 120-day ban on refugees to be implemented, given that those people are fleeing their countries of origin and have no prior relationship with USA individuals or institutions.
But what the requirement means for refugees - who were banned from entering the United States under the March executive order - is less clear, especially because the Department of Homeland Security has yet to issue any guidance on how Customs and Border Protection agents should interpret and implement the "bona fide relationship" requirement.
The partial stay means that foreigners with no US ties could be prohibited from entering the country, but those with ties such as through business or personal relationship would remain unaffected, The New York Times reported. The new order received some backlash as the state of Hawaii sued the president over the ban.
David Cole, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling's impact would be limited and the real crunch would come in October.
But refugee resettlement agencies expressed concern that clients who are in the process of applying for refugee status in the United States could be affected by the decision.
"The order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality", the 9th Circuit judges wrote.
"We urge the administration to begin its long-delayed review of the vetting process and restart a program which changes lives for the better", said Miliband.
The IRC did not immediately respond to a request for more details on which of their clients will be affected.
Trump called the Supreme Court's order "a clear victory for our national security". Refugees "in transit" and already approved would have been able to travel to the United States under the executive order. They said they, too, are still working to clarify how the decision will be implemented. In fact, it stipulates that organizations that represent refugees and immigrants can't merely add people to their client list to secure their admission to the US.
BuzzFeed also indicated that the announcement could not be considered unanimous.
For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. "I think it's the intent of the matter that seems to be the operative issue", she said.
"The court went out of its way to not tip its hand as to how it will rule on the ultimate issue, which is whether the president has the power to do this".
Trump's revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar from United States entry travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days. The ACLU and NILC say they'll be keeping close watch on airports around the USA when it does take effect.
"It's going to be very important for us over this intervening period to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a back door into implementing the full-scale Muslim ban that it's been seeking to implement", said Omar Jadwat, an ACLU lawyer.