"Presidential power doesn't always protect", read another, with a black-and-white image of some Japanese-Americans who were held at the interment camps.
Tens of thousands of legal visas were canceled and protesters took to the streets saying the president was banning Muslims in violation of the constitution's religious freedom protections.
While Tuesday's ruling does not deal with the arrest or prosecution of border crossers, it will likely be cited by Trump's lawyers as bolstering the government's authority along the borders. "A reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus", they contend, adding that "ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens".
"It was a 4-5 ruling, so it was close but not in our favor and it will give the presidential administration a right to discriminate against people".
"I think he's going to tout this as a vindication of his general immigration priorities", Yale-Loehr said.
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. Travelers from North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Libya and Somalia are barred or limited from entering the United States.
Conservative jurists prevailed over liberals in Tuesday's majority opinion from America's highest court.
Mr Trump tweaked the order after the 9th USA circuit court of appeals in San Francisco refused to reinstate the ban.
It also affects two non-Muslim countries: blocking travellers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.
"We may consider plaintiffs' extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds", the majority said.
The September proclamation establishing the ban said waivers could be granted if denying entry would cause "undue hardship", if entry of the person would not pose a threat to the United States, and if entry would be in the national interest.
Every appellate court that had considered the injunctions of this and the two prior iterations of President Trump's Muslim bans-including the Fourth Circuit in International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v. Trump, in which the IRAP is a named plaintiff and co-counsel-had upheld the injunctions.
The current travel ban dates from last September and it followed what the administration has called a thorough review by several federal agencies, although no such review has been shared with courts or the public.
Justice Sotomayor said: "History will not look kindly on the court's misguided decision today, nor should it". United States, which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the actions taken by Mr Trump to suspend entry of certain classes of people were "well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other president - the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid proclamation".
"This is not the first time the Court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it", wrote the American Civil Liberties Union on its official Twitter account. The President's ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries is another brick in the invisible wall which does nothing to strengthen our national security, or our nation's shared prosperity.
After a more moderate version of the two GOP proposals failed on Thursday and two delays on the Republicans' "compromise" bill, pressure is on the president's party to finally deliver a fix to the country's immigration problems, including controversial family separations along the US border.
When the first ban attempt was announced in early 2017 shortly after Trump took office, the Migration Policy Institute noted that more than 22% of all healthcare workers were immigrants, and 28% of those healthcare workers were surgeons or physicians.