.

Partial enforcement of the ban until arguments heard in October but in effect does what MAGA issued.

quote:

---

We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated,as specified in this opinion.

---

quote:

---

But the injunctions reach much further than that: They
also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals
abroad who have no connection to the United States at all.

The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance
the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a
foreign national does not burden any American party by
reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national.

And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion
in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant
hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762
(“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . ha[s] no
constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.

---

quote:

---

As for entities, the relationship must
be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course,
rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students
from the designated countries who have been admitted
to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship
with an American entity. So too would a worker who
accepted an offer of employment from an American company
or a lecturer invited to address an American audience.
Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply
to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to
immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from
the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

---

So basically if you don't have family in the US already, you're not getting in per the temporary ban.

Winning . Jeffrey Toobin can gofrick himself

Interesting:

quote:

---

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in part and dissenting in part

---

Can someone translate this into baw for me?

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch wanted to grant the stay in its entirety - meaning ban would go into effect.

quote:

---

Can someone translate this into baw for me?

---

puts a stay on lower court rulings and allows the ban with one individual exception for one person who has a family member already in the US.

As anyone with a brain knew, the Flyin' Hawaiian judge and the 9th Circuit ruled WAY too broadly, and SCOTUS drew a distinction between the application of the stay as to those who have a sufficient connection to the US and those who don't. Those who don't are exempt from the stay and subject to the travel ban.

Or has a connection with a business