On Monday, the White House claimed a temporary victory after the Supreme Court restored Trump's travel ban, blocking restrictions instated by the Ninth Court of Appeals earlier in the week. Justice Anthony Kennedy signed the one-page order, though nothing is set in stone until the court can come to an official decision.
On Sept. 7, the Ninth Court of Appeals had ruled that grandparents visiting family in the United States will be exempt from the travel ban, as will refugees who have been approved by U.S. resettlement agencies. According to the Trump administration, such agencies have promised to resettle up to 24,000 refugees in the United States. Now, those refugees' futures are in limbo until a permanent decision is reached. Though the court customarily waits 52 days to enforce a ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court judges decided to enforce their ruling just five days later. In their decision, the judges considered the hardships refugees currently face.
Refugees’ lives remain in vulnerable limbo during the pendency of theSupreme Court’s stay. Refugees have only a narrow window of time to complete their travel, as certain security and medical checks expire and must then be reinitiated.Even short delays may prolong a refugee’s admittance.Because this case is governed by equitable principles, and because many refugees without the benefit of the injunction are gravely imperiled, we shorten the time for the mandate to issue.
However, a day before the ruling was supposed to go into effect, the Supreme Court sided with Trump by placing a temporary stay on the Ninth Circuit's decision that refugees in touch with resettlement agencies would be exempt from the ban. The White House did not challenge the ruling that expanded upon what qualifies as a "close relationship" for those hoping to visit family in the states.
Opponents of the decision have until noon on Tuesday to file a court order. Hours prior, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall requested the stay that was eventually granted:
Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any freestanding connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government. Nor can the exclusion of an assured refugee plausibly be thought to 'burden' a resettlement agency in the relevant sense.
The Supreme Court will revisit the constitutionality of the ban on Oct. 10.