The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the temporary injunction that was placed on President Donald Trump's March immigration executive order earlier today. The order paused the refugee resettlement program for 120 days and the entrance of most nationals from six countries identified by the government as hotspots for terror for 90 days. The injunction was issued by several lower federal courts and reaffirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court also announced that it would hear formal arguments on the case in the fall.

NumbersUSA's Director of Government Relations, Rosemary Jenks, issued the following statement.

Today's unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law and for President Trump who is trying to enforce the law. President Trump's Executive Order clearly relied upon the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act in which Congress delegated to the President the authority to pause immigration into the United States in order to protect the interests of its citizens. NumbersUSA is heartened that the Court was unanimous in upholding this duly enacted statute. We expect that the Court will uphold 200 years of precedent and affirm in its final decision that the law, and not special interests, determines who is admitted into the United States.

The decision by the Court allows the Trump administration to move forward with the executive order, however, it did allow the injunction to remain in place for the individuals who initiated the original challenges to the order and any foreign nationals who have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch concurred with the Court's decision, but also wrote a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the Court's decision to limit the order. Writing for the dissenters, Justice Thomas wrote:

[T]he Court's remedy will prove unworkable. Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding--on peril of contempt--whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a "bona fide relationship," who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid ยง2(c)" of Executive Order No. 13780. And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to rise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now-- unanimously--found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.

Read the Court's full decision here.

Updated: Mon, Jul 10th 2017 @ 7:15pm EDT