The two liberal justices I thought most likely to uphold the ban, Breyer and Kagan, wrote their own dissent that they basically didn’t have enough information to decide whether there was unlawful discrimination against Muslims. They would have sent back to lower court to investigate how many waivers and exemptions were granted, which in their view could make the ban not unlawful. They’re trying to take a pragmatic approach, but I don’t think their reasoning makes much sense.
Sotomayor and Ginsburg’s dissent straight up found religious discrimination.