On Tuesday, the Supreme Court announced it will allow the Trump administration to continue to ban some refugees from entering the United States, the Associated Press reported.
The Supreme Court’s decision, which they presented without opinion or explanation, marked a shift from lower court rulings, which had ruled in favor of easing the ban and would have allowed up to 24,000 refugees who all have assurances from sponsors to enter the the U.S. over the next several weeks, according to the AP.
At the heart of this case, the AP noted, is what constitutes “bona fide” relationships.
In June, the Supreme Court allowed for the partial implementation of President Donald Trump’s travel ban, saying the government could not ban those without a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the U.S. While immediate family members make the cut, refugees without family in the country, even those with sponsors willing to vouch for them, do not.
“When it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the government’s compelling need to provide for the nation’s security,” the court wrote in its June decision.
The ban on refugees originally came as part of Trump’s January executive order barring travel for people attempting to enter the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority nations.
However, as the AP reported, the fight against the ban is far from over as the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the order on Oct. 10. Then, the justices will hear arguments on the legality of banning both travelers refugees.
However, by that date, the 90-day travel ban put in place by the order will have lapsed, along with the 120-day refugee ban, which is set to expire in October. So far, the Trump administration has given no indication as to whether they plan to seek a renewal on either ban.
But still, the Supreme Court’s legal opinion matters for any future bans (or renewal attempts). And as Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN on Tuesday, this particular ruling isn’t really an indication on how the court will rule in October.
“Although it may be tempting to see the order as a harbinger of how the court is likely to rule on the merits, it’s better understood as a very modest procedural step to stabilize the full scope of the injunctions against the travel ban over the next four weeks,” Vladeck said.