[5] On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments for the petition to vacate the injunctions, meanwhile allowing the government to move forward with a narrowed portion of the ban.

The Secretary of State would resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless people and nationals of countries for which security measures were deemed adequate.

Gary Leff, an airline-industry expert, referring to a 2016 DHS publication, believed it was likely the term "in-scope" referred to all non-U.S. citizens within the ages of 14 and 79, which Leff believed would increase the costs (money and time) of air travel perhaps due to fingerprinting requirements for all such people who traveled into the U.S.[20][21] The order cited paragraph (f) of Title 8 of the United States Code § 1182, which discusses inadmissible aliens.

[23]When Judge Chuang enjoined part of the executive order, he based his decision in part on paragraph (a) of Title 8 of the United States Code § 1152, which discusses impermissible discrimination when granting immigrant visas: No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.As originally written, Executive Order 13780 banned nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the United States, with certain exceptions, for 90 days.

The Trump administration listed these countries citing their governments' support for terrorism or their inability to combat it, as well as potential unreliability of identity documents.

At the end of the initial period of 90 days, on September 24, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 9645, extending the ban permanently, modifying the list of countries and specifying affected immigration categories of their nationals.

According to the proclamation, these countries were listed due to their failure to adequately share information related to public safety and terrorism about their nationals, among other reasons.

[24] On October 17, 2017, a federal judge determined that Presidential Proclamation 9645 "lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from [the] six specified countries would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'".

The federal judge granted a temporary restraining order, preventing Presidential Proclamation 9645 from taking effect on all countries mentioned, except for North Korea and Venezuela, the next day.

[24][25] The International Refugee Assistance Project and other organizations, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, also filed a lawsuit to prevent Presidential Proclamation 9645 from taking effect.

On October 18, 2017, a federal judge ruled that President Trump's public comments strongly indicated that national security was not the primary goal of the travel ban.

[42] The Court subsequently issued an order directing the United States to file a response to the emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction by March 14, 2017.

Judge Watson stated in his ruling, "When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs.

[56] In drawing its conclusion, the Court further quoted the Ninth Circuit appeal ruling on the original Executive Order (13769): "It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims", and quoted in support of its findings, previous rulings that "Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality" (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah); "a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions" (Larson v. Valente); and that "circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decision makers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose" (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing); ending with a comment that "the Supreme Court has been even more emphatic: courts may not 'turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose'" (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, ruled that a law becomes unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause if its "ostensible or predominant purpose" is to favor or disfavor any religion over any other).

[70][71] Judge Chuang noted that the statute does not prohibit the President from barring entry into the United States or the issuance of non-immigrant visas on the basis of nationality.

[75][76] On May 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit upheld the March ruling of the Maryland district court, continuing the block of the travel ban by a vote of 10-3 because it violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

Hawaii's outside counsel in a related case, Neal Katyal, told the Court he was "in Utah with very little internet access" for the rest of the week, so it granted him an extra day to file the state's response brief.

[83] On June 29, the Trump Administration sent out a diplomatic cable to embassies and consulates seeking to define what qualifies as a "bona fide relationship", excluding connections with refugee resettlement agencies, and clarifying that step-siblings and half-siblings are considered close family for the purpose of exceptions to the executive order, while grandparents and nephews are not.

"[86] On July 19, the Supreme Court issued a partial stay of the modified injunction, leaving in place Judge Watson’s order on family definitions.

On October 17, 2017, Judge Derrick Watson granted Hawaii's motion for a temporary restraining order against most of the Proclamation on the grounds it violated immigration statutes including 8 U.S.C.

[98] On January 19, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the government's petition for a writ of certiorari in the Trump v. Hawaii case, appealing the Ninth Circuit decision.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the issuance of the Proclamation was not likely to violate statutory law nor the Establishment Clause.

On March 6, 2017, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi stated that the government would wait for full details of the new executive order and "would react in proportion.

It stated, "The decision is an important step in the right direction, it consolidates the strategic alliance between Baghdad and Washington in many fields, and at their forefront war on terrorism.

It called the Trump administration’s travel ban a "dangerous escalation" that would affect all Libyans unfairly as it "places every citizen in the same basket as the terrorists".

It “expresse[d] its incomprehension in the face of the official reasons behind this decision" and emphasized its efforts to combat terrorism both within its own borders and neighboring Nigeria in partnership with the United States.

[111] On September 25, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza characterized the country’s inclusion in the modified ban as an act of  "new aggression" intended to sway  public opinion in the United States against the Maduro government.

"[113] Sudan's Foreign Ministry stated on September 25 that the Sudanese government welcomed its removal from the list of countries included in the travel ban, regarding the modifications as "positive and important".

[114] The Somali government hired a U.S. lobbying firm, the Sonoran Policy Group (SPG) on August 21, 2018, that would help the lobbyists de-list Somalia from the Presidential Proclamation 9645 and to improve military and diplomatic relations with the United States.

[115] On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden revoked Executive Order 13780 and its related proclamations citing its contravention of American values of religious freedom and tolerance and weakening of national security.