There were two cases in total, the first of the two cases was dismissed on account of the challenge being moot, as the executive order they were challenging expired on September 24th. They have yet to decide on the Hawaii case that also challenges the stoppage of the refugee resettlement program for 120 days.
Unfortunately for the left, Trump issued a new executive order that expanded the ban to several more countries, so if the plaintiffs want to challenge the new ban, they will have to start from scratch. And this time, the travel bans bar travel to the United States from these countries indefinitely.
The court said it originally agreed to hear the case to resolve a challenge to “the temporary suspension of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
“Because that provision of the order ‘expired by its own terms’ on September 24, 2017, the appeal no longer presents a ‘live case or controversy,’” the court said.
The court had originally planned to hear two cases challenging the order on Oct. 10, but cancelled arguments after Trump issued new, targeted restrictions on travel from eight countries — Chad, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia. The court ordered the parties in both cases to file additional briefs arguing whether the case is now moot given the new order.
The International Refugee Assistance Project pushed the court to hear the case.
“Plaintiffs retain an all-too-real stake in the outcome of the case,” the group’s attorney, Omar Jadwat, said in a filing to the court on Oct. 5.
“The 90-day ban on their relatives has now been converted into an indefinite ban with the potential to separate their families, and thousands of others’, for years.”
He said the “religious condemnation” of the earlier executive order is not dissipated Trump’s new order, “which – despite some new window dressing – continues to relay a message of disparagement to the plaintiffs and other members of their faith.”
The court has not yet ruled on whether to ultimately hear the other challenge to the ban, which was brought by the state of Hawaii. That case also challenges the part of Trump’s ban halting the U.S. refugee resettlement program for 120 days. That provision does not expire until Oct. 24.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from Tuesday’s order vacating the judgment. She said she would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted.