Three federal appeal judges refused to reinstate U.S. President Donald Trump’s 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’s 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.

CTV News 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’s 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’s “hard to say” what the decision means for those refugees.

“My 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’re really starting to assess their options. It’s a very difficult thing, though,” 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 “controversial” when first signed, and the new attention is drawing fresh scorn.

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this new approach to asylum seekers, there are a lot of people in Canada who are of the view that the United States no longer represents a safe country for asylum seekers, and as a result, Canada should pull out of the agreement,” he said.

Concerns about Islamophobia

During the appeal court proceedings, some judges raised concerns about the motivation behind Trump’s 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.

“The 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’t seem to be really much of a connection to national security,” he said.

Warring branches of government

The legal battle, and Trump’s subsequent outrage over the decision on social media, has pitted two pillars of government against each other in an “unprecedented” way, Sandaluk said.

“To 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,” he said.

Before the decision came down, Trump lashed out at a Seattle judge who initially blocked the executive order, calling him a “so-called judge” and labelling the decision “ridiculous.”

The comment was met with consternation by Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s recent nominee to the Supreme Court, who called the comments “demoralizing and disheartening.”

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

“Even Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court described his reaction to Trump’s social media tirades as disheartening and discouraging. So how this all plays out, to be honest, I have no idea,” Sandaluk said.

Next up: Supreme Court?

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

“The chaos that’s being caused by the order itself, then it’s 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,” 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.

“What 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,” 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.

“So there’s 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,” he said.

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

“The United States, judicially speaking, is in for a relatively bumpy ride in the coming days and weeks,” he said.