The US Supreme Court has permitted parts of President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban to go into force.
In a ruling today, the United States' highest court said it would hear the substance of the arguments against the ban in October.
However it said that there was a national security interest in allowing the US government to prevent foreign nationals from six majority Muslim countries from entering the country.
The court said the travel ban could go ahead for foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen who do not have any connections to the US.
Two lower courts, in Maryland and Hawaii, had issued injunctions against the President's travel ban, but the Supreme Court has now partially overturned them.
Those immigrants who do have legitimate US ties will still be granted access, subject to the usual criteria, as the injunctions against the travel ban coming into force remain in place for certain categories of people.
The Supreme Court said that immigrants who have family ties in the US would still be admitted, as would those who are students at a US university, are working for a US company or have been invited to address a US audience.
Pres Trump heralds SC decision as"clear victory for our national security"..calls it a "travel suspension" not his usual #travelban @rtenews pic.twitter.com/06pGwZgkPA
— Caitriona Perry (@CaitrionaPerry) June 26, 2017
The Department of Homeland Security said it would implement the temporary travel ban in a professional and public manner.
"The implementation of the Executive Order will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travellers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry," the department said in a statement.
Mr Trump's ban had sought to ban refugees, and the court said today, refugees who meet the standard of bona fides ties to the US could be admitted, even if the annual cap of 50,000 had already been reached, however those without connections would be prevented from entering.
The court did not give any indication of its views of the reasons provided by the lower courts for issuing the injunctions against the travel ban in the first place, namely the earlier findings that the ban was in fact a religious Muslim ban and therefore unconstitutional, or that Mr Trump had acted beyond his powers in drafting the executive order.
The nine-judge court will address those matters when it hears the case in full in its next sitting in October.
However, it did say it was partially lifting the injunctions because preventing the government from banning "foreign nationals unconnected to the United States", it said would "appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else".
It found that the balance tipped in favour of "the government's compelling need to provide for the nation's security".
Mr Trump's travel ban was initially designed to be in force for 90 days while a review of immigration procedures was carried out.
The court today ordered that review of US systems to go ahead and adequate notice of changes to be provided to foreign governments.
While the nine judges of the Supreme Court were unanimous in their decision to hear the case, they were split in terms of lifting the injunctions on a partial basis.
Three judges, including the newest appointee Neil Gorsuch, disagreed, and said the injunctions should have been fully lifted so the travel ban could proceed as initially designed by the President.
