The Supreme Court has partly reinstated Donald Trump's travel ban, aka the Muslim Ban. This is just a temporary decision; they'll make a final decision in the Fall. In response, the Trump administration has unwittingly admitted once again that Trump's actions have made the USA less safe.

From this, bolding added:

...The court’s order has the look of a compromise. It allows Trump’s order to go into effect, but not for “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” such as a spouse, a close relative, an employer or enrollment in a university...

...Since many visitors from the six affected countries have such a relationship, the impact of the order may be narrow...

...The court noted the government is free to work on new vetting procedures for immigrants from the six countries...

Specifically, the Court defined who can get in under their ruling (Doe and Elshikh are plaintiffs in earlier cases against Trump's ban):

For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

From [2]:

...The biggest unsettled question, though, is what the impact will be on refugees.

Refugees don’t already have jobs before they’re allowed to settle in the US, and many of them don’t already have close family here. However, they do have a relationship with a US-based organization: US-based “refugee resettlement agencies” are responsible for settling refugees in the United States, and every refugee entering the US has already been placed with an agency.

The Supreme Court didn’t clarify whether simply being a client of a resettlement agency counts as a “bona fide” relationship. The organizations that have fought the ban are arguing it does. But it’s not clear whether the Trump administration will agree.

See this for how the Trump admin has made the USA less safe, by their own unwitting admission.

----------
[1] latimes . com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-20170626-story.html
[2] vox . com/2017/6/26/15872950/muslim-ban-trump-supreme-court