"By upholding the Muslim Ban, the Supreme Court has approved one of the many ways President Trump is waging open war on immigrant families", said United We Dream's Sanaa Abrar, the group's Policy and Advocacy Manager.
Mr Trump's order was challenged on the grounds that he had exceeded his authority and violated the constitution by targeting Muslims.
Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to restrict immigration from majority-Muslim countries have been struck down by federal courts. During election campaign, as a candidate, Trump himself had given arguments to opponents of this veto by claiming that he had to ban country from "Muslims" to reduce risks of Islamist terrorism. The Supreme Court had allowed it to go largely into effect last December while the legal challenge continued.
Trump will view the travel ban decision as a validation that he was, from the start, right all along about his ability to limit who comes into the 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", the statement said. Some even made comparisons (as Sotomayor did) to the Supreme Court's infamous approval of Japanese internment camps during World War II. He said the United States needs to reclaim its values: "We're a good nation, we're a good people".
While no polling has been done recently on the President Donald Trump's travel ban, there has never previously been a consensus on whether Americans approve or disapprove, with all polling done in February 2017 - when the ban was first proposed - split along party lines and highly dependent on question wording.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Tuesday slammed the Supreme Court ruling, saying that history will judge the decision harshly. It also applies to North Korea and Venezuela, but those provisions were not challenged in court.
But in his option for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court's job wasn't to decide whether to denounce those statements.
Somalia-Entry into the United States by nationals of Somalia seeking initial admission as immigrants is suspended, and nonimmigrants traveling to the United States will be subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements "to determine if applicants are connected to terrorist organizations or otherwise pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States".
The challengers, led by the state of Hawaii, have argued the policy was motivated by Trump's enmity toward Muslims.
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said his client had used the phrase "Muslim ban" and had directed Giuliani to "show me the right way to do it legally".
Protesters took to the streets from Washington to Los Angeles and NY to bemoan the decision, and oppose the administration's hardline approach on the southern border, where 2 000 children remain separated from their migrant parents.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Travel Association said in statement to CNN that the industry wants Trump to make clear that travelers remain welcome in the United States, because "The economic stakes around strong and healthy worldwide travel are too high... for the welcome message not to become a featured part of the administration's calculus".
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, found "stark parallels between the reasoning of this case and that of Korematsu"; in both cases, "the government invoked an ill-defined national-security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion". The court's decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. When CNN asked in February 2017 if the executive order is an attempt to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., 55% said it was.