When President Trump first signed the executive order for his January travel ban, lower courts across the country scrambled to overturn or stop its enactment. While many saw the stoppages as a success, the administration pushed on, eventually taking the revised order to the Supreme Court. Now that they鈥檝e heard the case, the justices announced their ruling today, which marks the Trump administration鈥檚 first major win in the enactment of the ban.

The six countries targeted by Trump鈥檚 order are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

In the ruling Monday, the court announced that the 90-day ban may go into effect, but with a caveat that any foreign national with a legitimate tie to a person or entity in the US may not be affected by the ban.

鈥淔oreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,鈥 the ruling said, adding, 鈥淪o too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.鈥

While the ruling doesn鈥檛 completely overturn the ban, it does narrow its scope.

The court also urged the administration to work on ways to better vet incoming visitors to the US during the 90-day ban, admitting that although it will be hearing specific cases from when the ban first took place, the 90-day timeline will be over by the time the cases head to the Supreme Court. The LA Times argues that this restrictive/partial enactment of the ban shows that Supreme Court justices were as bothered by the original Executive Order as the lower courts that blocked it.

What do you think about this partial win for the administration? Tell us @BritandCo!

(h/t LA Times; photos via Instagram + Pool/Getty)