Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project explained.

Simplifying the arguments and lower court decisions in the Travel Ban case headed to the Supreme Court.

 

Background

President Trump issued an executive order stopping travelers from certain Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. He revised it after he got sued several times (for discriminating against Muslims) and lost. The revised executive order did not resolve the substantive issues, according to some.

Individuals and entities (including some states) claiming they are harmed by the second executive order sued the government. Plaintiffs won in two cases. Two district courts ordered the government not to implement the executive orders. The government appealed in two separate appeals courts, where it lost again. 

The government now brings the cases (consolidated for purposes of argument) to the Supreme Court, where they will be heard in October 2017.

Note

This infographic omits Standing and Mootness arguments, both of which may be relevant in the Supreme Court decision.

Standing is an argument the government made in the appeals courts: that Plaintiffs do not "stand" to be harmed by the executive order in a way that justifies them to sue.

Mootness is an argument the Plaintiffs may bring in the Supreme Court, or that the Supreme Court may bring on its own: that by the time the case is decided, the decision won't matter anymore because the Travel Ban will have expired (or practically expired).

See our report on Getting into Federal Court to learn more about Standing and Mootness.