Three federal appeal judges refused to reinstate U.S. President Donald Trump鈥檚 controversial travel ban on Thursday in a bombshell ruling that had repercussions in the White House and across the world.

The decision means that Trump鈥檚 executive order banning travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days has no effect.

The ruling delivered a major legal blow to Trump, now in the third week of his presidency.

麻豆影视 Channel spoke with Toronto-based immigration lawyer Joel Sandaluk to get a sense of how the decision affects Canadian travellers, refugees seeking asylum north of the border and what the legal loss means for Trump鈥檚 fledgling administration.

Refugees fleeing to Canada

At least 61 asylum seekers have crossed the U.S.-Manitoba border since Jan. 1, with more than half of those making the illegal crossing since Trump signed the contentious executive order on Jan. 27.

Sandaluk says it鈥檚 鈥渉ard to say鈥� what the decision means for those refugees.

鈥淢y office has had a number of calls from individuals who are in the United States right now who are seeking protection and who are wondering if Canada would be an option for them, because they鈥檙e really starting to assess their options. It鈥檚 a very difficult thing, though,鈥� he said.

Canada and the U.S. signed the Safe Third Country Agreement more than a decade ago. Under the terms of the deal, refugees must seek asylum in the first country they enter. As well, Sandaluk says the agreement makes it exceedingly difficult for U.S.-based refugees without family members in Canada to seek asylum north of the border.

Sandaluk said the deal was 鈥渃ontroversial鈥� when first signed, and the new attention is drawing fresh scorn.

鈥淣ow that the United States has adopted this new approach to asylum seekers, there are a lot of people in Canada who are of the view that the United States no longer represents a safe country for asylum seekers, and as a result, Canada should pull out of the agreement,鈥� he said.

Concerns about Islamophobia

During the appeal court proceedings, some judges raised concerns about the motivation behind Trump鈥檚 ban. One judge asked the lawyer representing the U.S. Justice Department to provide evidence that travellers from the seven banned countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- posed a threat to national security. The lawyer was unable to provide any proof.

A judge also raised concerns about statements Trump made in the media about the travel ban, Sandaluk said.

鈥淭he court was very concerned about statements that had been made by Donald Trump, also Rudolph Giuliani, about what was the purpose of this ban. And it seemed like a lot of purpose of this ban was based on Islamophobia. There didn鈥檛 seem to be really much of a connection to national security,鈥� he said.

Warring branches of government

The legal battle, and Trump鈥檚 subsequent outrage over the decision on social media, has pitted two pillars of government against each other in an 鈥渦nprecedented鈥� way, Sandaluk said.

鈥淭o have one branch (of government) attack the other branch so viscerally and undermine faith in it, to be honest, really calls into question the ability of the government to function effectively,鈥� he said.

Before the decision came down, Trump lashed out at a Seattle judge who initially blocked the executive order, calling him a 鈥渟o-called judge鈥� and labelling the decision 鈥渞idiculous.鈥�

The comment was met with consternation by Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump鈥檚 recent nominee to the Supreme Court, who called the comments 鈥渄emoralizing and disheartening.鈥�

Moments after the decision to reject the stay was announced Thursday, Trump tweeted in all capitals 鈥淪EE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!鈥�

鈥淓ven Trump鈥檚 nominee for the Supreme Court described his reaction to Trump鈥檚 social media tirades as disheartening and discouraging. So how this all plays out, to be honest, I have no idea,鈥� Sandaluk said.

Next up: Supreme Court?

It鈥檚 unclear what鈥檚 next for the case, but Sandaluk said he expects the Trump administration will take steps to appeal the decision.

鈥淭he chaos that鈥檚 being caused by the order itself, then it鈥檚 uneven execution, and the various court decisions and stays, has been absolutely maddening for travellers, for lawyers, for border officers as well. Where this will end up is the Supreme Court eventually, I would imagine,鈥� he said.

More uncertainty may lie ahead if the case ascends to the Supreme Court, Sandaluk said, because there are currently eight judges sitting in the court.

鈥淲hat that means is that matter could end in a four-four tie, which means that the lower court -- the district court decision -- would stand and would remain undisturbed in the event of a tie,鈥� he explained.

That is, if the eight judges sit on the case. Sandaluk suggested that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an associate justice appointed by Bill Clinton, could feel pressured to remove herself from the case because of comments she made during the election campaign against Trump, which she later apologized for.

鈥淪o there鈥檚 also an open question now about whether or not she would even be sitting on that case, whether she would feel it would be more appropriate for her to remove herself and allow the seven remaining judges of the court to sit in judgement of that appeal,鈥� he said.

If one thing鈥檚 for certain, Sandaluk said, it鈥檚 more uncertainty.

鈥淭he United States, judicially speaking, is in for a relatively bumpy ride in the coming days and weeks,鈥� he said.