Source: http://pressbull.com/heres-the-full-report-on-the-supreme-court-reinstatement-of-the-trump-travel-ban/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:27:30+00:00

Document:
These cases involve challenges to Executive Order No.
challenged the order in two separate lawsuits.
measure by the Courts of Appeals.
certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.
Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. 82 Fed.
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for 90 days.
States during fiscal year 2017. §§5(a), (d).
as deficient will be given 50 days to alter their practices.
waivers of the entry bar. §3(c).
a threat” to national security. Ibid.
number” for this fiscal year. §6(b).
66 Stat. 187, as amended.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled first.
would violate the INA “in all applications.” Id., at *28.
internal executive reviews directed by EO–2.
those briefs were filed, however, the ground shifted again.
and the Director of National Intelligence (June 14, 2017).
asked whether §2(c) has a primarily religious purpose.
President’s judgment on a matter of national security.
by foreign governments in connection with visa adjudications.
burdens while this review proceeds.
as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12.
Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20, 24 (2008); 11A C. Wright, A.
but to balance the equities as the litigation moves forward.
Wright, supra, §2947, at 115.
of the public at large.” Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc.
Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S.
portion of the proceeding.” Nken, supra, at 428.
to outweigh the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c).
abroad who have no connection to the United States at all.
reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national.
hardships identified by the courts below.
for the benefit of individuals in the former category.
parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii.
or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.
secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.
for the Nation’s security. See supra, at 9–11; Haig v.
Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 307 (1981).
other individuals, the provisions may take effect.
the stay applications are granted in part.
absent a stay.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Id., at 1304–1305 (internal quotation marks omitted); cf.
is, that the judgments below will be reversed.
for a stay in their entirety.
asks for the scope of relief that the Court today provides.
plaintiffs” in the case, Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S.
or will imminently suffer, actual harm.” Lewis v.
as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.

References: §3
 §6
 §2
 §2947
 v. 
 §2
 v.

 v. 
 v.