The travel ban has been in place since December, when the justices stopped lower court decisions that had blocked part of it from being enforced.
The court also discarded claims that the ban was motivated by religious resentment. There were many court movements in between, as well as revised versions of the so-called travel ban.
"This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country", he said.
The ban allows for waivers on a case-by-case basis, but applicants who can not afford an attorney to go through the waiver process will likely be unable to immigrate to the United States, immigration advocates say. 'While the ACS is strongly committed to assuring the safety of the nation, it does remain concerned, as we expressed in January 2017, about the potentially chilling effect travel bans could have on the scientific enterprise, ' says the organisation's spokesman, Glenn Ruskin.
The ban prohibits entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.
Even so, Taeb, as well as other legal analysts, said the ruling was expected due to the body of the Supreme Court which holds a conservative majority. She also compared the present case to that of Korematsu V. U.S., a Supreme Court decision in 1944 which upheld the internment of almost 120,000 Japanese Americans in barbed wire enclosures during World War II. Trump indicated he doesn't have any plans to expand upon the current ban, despite his previous statements describing the order as "watered down" compared to the previous two. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who was born in Japan, both compared the ban and the ruling to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
"This is a backward and un-American policy that fails to improve our national security", said top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer.
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.
"The government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. And we are going to need to show how wrong this court was to totally ignore the anti-Muslim statements by this president, and to totally ignore that we are a country of checks and balances". The ride-sharing company won a court case to continue operating after London's transport authority said it was not "fit and proper".
Those restrictions were not challenged in court.
The Trump policy applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Chad was later removed from the list.
The travel ban was implemented haphazardly at the start of the Trump administration and faced repeated setbacks from the United States legal system. In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned a unanimous decision from 40 years ago. It also indefinitely banned the entry of Syrian refugees to the U.S. and imposed a four-month ban on refugees from elsewhere in the world. Almost 5,000 were found "ineligible" for visas for other, unspecified reasons unrelated to the travel ban.
"We urge the administration and Congress to affirm the paramount importance of non-discrimination against any person based on religion, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation in all decisions relating to immigration policy, and particularly, to undo the harm to patients, the [international medical graduates] who treat them, and to medical education that will result from the President's Executive Office and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it", ACP President Ana María López, MD, MPH, FACP, said.