The 9th Circuit ruled the original travel ban was unlikely to be upheld in court, finding it violated due process, which requires the government to give sufficient time and opportunity for people affected by the ban to respond. The court found the ban did not give the affected people advance notice of the change to their status or a fair process to contest it.

But there’s a complexity here — different groups have different due-process rights. Permanent residents are entitled to a more robust process than temporary visa holders and refugees, who have more rights than visa applicants, who have more rights than people without American ties, according to Leon Fresco, an immigration lawyer at Holland and Knight.

That means the government can comply with due process by creating a process for recourse or by applying the law only to people with minimal rights.

The new ban took the second path, exempting all current visa holders and allowing affected visa applicants to apply for waivers.

That doesn’t resolve the due-process issue entirely, however. Americans with an “interest” in a specific foreign national being admitted to the country (such as the American’s family members) have due-process rights, according to the 9th Circuit’s ruling. Yet the new ban gives them no clear avenue for recourse.

Since there is no outlined process for those people to petition for their or their family’s lawful entry, the ban may still violate due-process rights, Fresco said.