It has ruled that the immigration ban can be enforced until it actually hears the case, which it has not yet done.
The court ruled 7-2 to grant the administration’s request to lift two injunctions imposed by lower courts that had partially blocked the ban — the third version of a contentious policy that Trump first sought to impose after taking office in January.
And what does that infer? Do you believe the court would vote 7-2 to lift the injunction, if the intent was not to overturn it completely? Makes no sense. If there was any question, or if the ruling was possibly adverse to Trump, the Supreme Court would stand mute, until they heard arguments.
On 26 June, 2017, the Supreme Court narrowed the lower court stays on the Second Travel Ban. So yes, the court has previously ruled, in part, to Trump's second travel ban.
And here is one headline for the latest 9th Circuit Courts latest decision....Federal Judge Defies Supreme Court and Rules Against Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit ruled the new procedure was still illegal but didn’t attempt to issue an injunction because the 7-2 ruling basically said the Supreme Court thought the government would prevail. Astonishingly, the Supreme Court’s sort of explicit guidance was not good enough for everyone:
A federal judge in Seattle on Saturday partially lifted a Trump administration ban on certain refugees after two groups argued that the policy prevented people from some mostly Muslim countries from reuniting with family living legally in the United States.
This is beginning to become a mockery of our judicial system. When sentiment and politics become guidance for Court Decisions, over Constitutional Law, it becomes obstructionism, not judicial fairness.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
