Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to evaluate Trump’s travel ban next term, whilst overturning the decision of lower courts by granting Trump’s administration to enforce the immigration ban against certain individuals while waiting for the Supreme Court to come to a final decision.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that Trump can block everyone from the six identified “dangerous” countries (Iran, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), it simply means that certain people may be permitted into the U.S. so long as they have a “bonafide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Although it is up for interpretation, the Supreme Court specified which of these individuals should be permitted: people with a close family relationship to someone in the United States, students admitted to a university in the United States, workers who have accepted an offer of employment in the United States, and lecturers invited to speak to an American audience.

However, qualifications of these categories shall be later discussed.

Apparently, foreign nationals with no “bonafide relationship” to the United States do not have the same rights as the described individuals above, and therefore can potentially be barred from entry. The courts and justices justified this claim by asserting that the reasons for barring entry was because the governement’s concern for the threat of national security was, “undoubtedly at its peak where there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.”

The Justices didn’t just highlight the banned foreign countries, but also refugees streaming from other war torn countries. They decided to impose the same regulations to those seeking entry from the six countries as they did the refugees. With minimal slack however, refugees who have had some previous connection to the US may not be similarly blocked from entry.

Although not exactly imposed, this seems to be a win for Trump.

He will be able to say the Supreme Court basically slapped down the lower courts for giving him an inch, and taking a mile in regards to granting him power to repossess his power in controlling the Untied State’s borders. The Courts now claim he was overstepping his boundaries when he levied all travel from the six countries and certain refugees from entering our borders. If administration had written the original travel ban along the court’s ruling, all this legal and political resistance may not have even transpired.

With a little hope still lingering, this travel ban decision is not final. It only applies for a limited amount of time until the Justices come to a final ruling, which may not come until fall.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear all arguments until the case’s next term -- which is in October -- where they could either endorse their current standing, or suggest something totally different.

Nonetheless, there are clearly many unanswered questions regarding the decision, but for these countries, refugees, and relatives in the United States to these people, all we can do is remain patient.