Or, to put it in a more nuanced fashion- the court ruled to lift (or 'stay') the preliminary injunction (for the non-attorneys out there, a temporary halt ordered by the court) on the travel ban.
So, theoretically there could be a different result when the court makes the final ruling this fall, but I suspect it will be largely in line with the ruling today, otherwise the injunction wouldn't have been lifted (I can get further into that if anyone wants).
Earlier this spring I wrote:
The sections that ban entry probably should've included a caveat for people that have already been admitted (current visa holders etc), and grandfathered them in. I would expect that maybe we'll get clarification on that from the White House Counsel or maybe Trump himself. Without the clarification, there is a potential issue- I haven't researched it thoroughly yet, but the legality of restricting people who are already green card holders is questionable. There is a section in the order that allows Homeland Security to admit people on a case-by-case basis, so that section could be used as a loophole to admit the current green card holders.
People that haven't been granted entry yet, though (i.e. new immigrants), the order can restrict legally.
And lo and behold, that's pretty much exactly what the Supreme Court said today. The original did have a problem, since it arguably applied to green card holders, and it's undeniable that they have certain due process rights. But the revised travel ban addressed that issue and provided for explicit exceptions to green card holders, people who already had a visa, etc. In light of that, many expected the new order to ultimately be upheld as constitutional.
Of course, some of the more loony liberal circuits found it to be unconstitutional anyway, even though the new order had fixed the very real issues with the first order. The rationale for such basically came down to, "well, so what if it's fixed, Trump is a big ol meanie and racist!" Most of us more thoughtful lawyers across the country rolled our eyes at this, although quietly wondering if the Supreme Court was actually gonna buy that bullsh-t.
The Court's order is here. The travel ban was upheld, with no dissents from the liberal judges (somewhat of a surprise there). The rationale was as I always said- if you had something that actually entitled you to a right to be here (like a visa, or what the court calls a 'bona fide relationship' to the US), then you can't be denied entry, but everyone else can. To rule otherwise would've been to say that everyone and anyone across the world, no matter whether they had a visa or not, has a constitutional right to entry into the US. That would've been akin to ordering open borders and effectively granting US citizenship to the world population... to think that the liberal circuits were OK with this is both alarming and disturbing (but ultimately revealing in what the liberals' eventual gameplan is with immigration).
Thankfully the Supreme Court didn't see it that way and declined to overturn decades of precedent and apply the Constitution as intended. Even the liberal judges didn't go for it, which I'm surprised to see- pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless. This opinion gives some insight into what the final order may look like. I suspect the conservatives will uphold the ban in full, the liberals will probably file a concurrence (or dissent in part) upholding part of the ban, but loosening it some and giving visa rights to people who demonstrate sufficient ties to the US (such as familial ties, etc).