This is not a final ruling on the travel ban: Challenges to the policy are winding through the federal courts, and the justices themselves ultimately are expected to rule on its legality. But the action indicates that the high court might eventually approve the latest version of the ban, announced by U.S. President Donald Trump in September. Lower courts have continued to find problems with the policy. Opponents of this and previous versions of the ban say they show a bias against Muslims. They say that was reinforced most recently by Trump's retweets of anti-Muslim videos. Just two of nine justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, noted their disagreement with court orders allowing the latest policy to take full effect. This is the third version of the travel ban that Trump first sought to implement after taking office in January. Revised Trump travel ban now in effect Trump slaps travel restrictions on North Korea, Venezuela in expanded ban The new policy is not expected to cause the chaos that ensued at airports when Trump rolled out his first ban without warning in January. Possible exemptions The ban applies to travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded. The courts were borrowing language the Supreme Court itself came up with last summer to allow partial enforcement of an earlier version of the ban. The ban applies to travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. (James Lawler Duggan/Reuters) Now, those relationships will no longer provide a blanket exemption from the ban, although visa officials can make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The justices offered no explanation for their order, but the administration had said that blocking the full ban was causing "irreparable harm" because the policy is based on legitimate national security and foreign policy concerns. In lawsuits filed in Hawaii and Maryland, federal courts said the updated travel ban violated