The Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban on travelers from majority-Muslim nations today in a 5-4 ruling. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the court views that it is well within the president's power to control the flow of immigration into America, and rejected critics' claims of anti-Muslim bias.

The travel ban, which went into effect in December while legal challenges were still going on, will restrict entry into the country from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—according to the Times, citizens from those nations are now "forbidden from emigrating to the United States and many of them are barred from working, studying or vacationing here." The Supreme Court decision comes after several federal court rulings over the last year invalidated or scaled back earlier versions of the travel ban, which was one of the first major policies Trump enacted after coming into office. During his presidential campaign, Trump tweeted and released a press release openly stating that the policy is intended to "prevent Muslim immigration."

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that Trump had made many statements concerning his desire to impose a "Muslim ban," but argued "the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility." To that end, he concluded, “The proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices."

Interestingly, even as the travel ban was upheld, the Court overruled Korematsu v. United States, the landmark 1944 decision that endorsed the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Roberts wrote that it was "objectively unlawful and outside the scope of presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that based on the evidence in the case, "a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus." She writes:

The Court’s decision today…leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns...President Trump has never disavowed any of his prior statements about Islam. Instead, he has continued to make remarks that a reasonable observer would view as an unrelenting attack on the Muslim religion and its followers.

She added that her colleagues on the court arrived at the opposite result by "ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens."

Judge Anthony Kennedy also wrote a concurring majority opinion which, as political reporter Liz Goodwin wrote, "appears to be a plea for administration officials to uphold the Constitution even when the court has not power to make them."

(You can read all three SCOTUS opinions here.)

During a meeting with Congressional reps in the White House Cabinet Room today, Trump suggested the new US immigration policy should simply be: "YOU CAN'T COME IN."

The White House had this to say about the ruling:

"The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States," Trump said. "In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country. 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."

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a statement:

The Trump travel ban is a gross violation of our American values, and the Supreme Court's ruling along partisan lines does nothing to change that. This shameful and bigoted policy is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to govern by hate and division and continue the federal government's assault on immigrants. By upholding a policy rooted in Islamophobia, this ruling encourages and contributes to a culture of profiling and religious discrimination.

Just because the Supreme Court says it is legal does not mean it is right. This ruling is a deviation from our constitutional principles and joins the sad legacy of decisions that have been an affront to the core values that define our democracy including Dred Scott v. Sandford, Korematsu v. United States, Bowers v. Hardwick, and Boutilier v. INS.

In New York, we believe our diversity is our greatest strength and we remember that unless we are Native American, we all came from someplace else. We will continue to strive to uphold the values embodied by the Lady in our Harbor and welcome all immigrants who seek to become a part of the New York family.

In a series of tweets, the ACLU wrote:

In 1944, the Supreme Court allowed the US government to imprison Japanese Americans solely because of their national origin and ethnicity, based on empty claims of national security. It’s one of the most shameful chapters of US history, and today’s decision now joins it.

Today's Supreme Court ruling repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision. It takes the government lawyers' flimsy national security excuse for the ban at face value, instead of taking seriously the president's own explanation for his actions.

It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever.