Bahramipanah, the Iranian woman who lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan, had hoped the Supreme Court would end the ban for good this time so her mother would be able to come to the U.S.to celebrate Bahramipanah's birthday next week.
The Supreme Court ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban.
A lawsuit filed Tuesday by New York, California and 15 other states also cites Trump's statement referring to Mexicans crossing the border as rapists as evidence that the administration's border separation policy is consistent with what it says is Trump's demonstrated bias against Latin Americans. "At a minimum we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country, we know who is coming in, we know where they're coming from - we just have to know who is coming here". Trump said in a White House statement.
"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who can not be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices", Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
In a 5-4 opinion, the court found that Trump's executive order on the immigration restriction fell "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA (the Immigration and Nationality Act)". The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of stlucianewsonline.com, its sponsors or advertisers.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said a "reasonable observer" would conclude the travel ban was motivated by "anti-Muslim animus".
"This repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President's words have created".
Travel bans came fully into force in December when supreme court justices overruled lower courts.
But given the president's actions and attitudes towards immigrants so far, Yale-Loehr said the president may ignore that kind of legal nuance and use Tuesday's ruling and justification to go all in on his enforcement wish list.
"The president has every right to protect our country in any way he sees fit", said Sandra Ware, a DE resident and past president of the Sussex County Republican Women's Club. Ryan Mace, Grassroots Advocacy & Refugee Specialist at Amnesty International USA, called it a "hateful policy". It was a devastating day for Muslim people everywhere-many of whom now may be separated from their family members indefinitely-and for everyone who believes in the fairness and equality at the heart of this country's Constitution and laws.
Christopher Richardson, a U.S. diplomat from 2011 to 2018 who most recently served at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid, stated in an affidavit in federal court this month that consular officers were not authorized to issue waivers on their own.
In the case, Trump v. Hawaii, the state of Hawaii argues that the ban hurts its university system by banning potential students and scholars from entering the country.
But some civil liberties groups and immigration advocates likened it to a 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld an executive order requiring Americans of Japanese ancestry to be sent to detention camps.
"I think he's going to tout this as a vindication of his general immigration priorities", Yale-Loehr said. John Cornyn of Texas says that despite claims by some Democrats, "This is not a Muslim ban".
Trump also has moved to rescind protections for young immigrants called "Dreamers" who were brought to the United States illegally as children, as well as acting against states and cities that protect illegal immigrants, ending protected status for certain immigrants in the country for decades, intensifying deportation efforts and pursuing limits on legal immigration.