The win is that the SC ordered the lower court, (4th circuit), to dismiss the case. That means that the findings and rulings are no longer valid and they must start new on the EO3 case. They can not amend the original case since is has been, (will be), dismissed.
All 9 justices voted to dismiss as moot, however, Sotomeyer wanted to revoke the centiori but leave the lower cases intact. That would have allowed the Plaintiff’s to use the negative findings as a basis for their challenge to EO3.
This now means that the district court hearing the EO3 cases will need to develop the facts during hearings and can’t use the previous findings as a starting point. Also, the issue of standing must be litigated for the new case/plaintiffs. The old plaintiffs are out because their visas have since been issued and the visa holder is in the US. Their facts no longer are valid since they do not have injuries to be argued.
Starting from scratch means there have been “No finding of religious animus” etc. The prior plaintiff’s are gone and the facts argued prior are not valid. New facts are required, I.E. “my wife has been denied a visa” etc.
The Hawaii case from the 9th circuit is still valid because the refugee issue was part of that case and the 120 days doesn’t expire until 24 Oct. Hawaii filed a revised complaint 10/10/17 adding the EO3 to their case. However, it is expected that the SC will also declare that original case moot and order it dismissed. At that time it is expected that the Hawaii court will have to also dismiss the new revised complaint with the original case and Hawaii would have to file a new complaint encompassing only the EO3 without the findings the court made in the EO1 and EO2 since that case is dismissed, (treated as having never existed).
Sorry the above is lengthy. I’m trying to put it in layman terms.
Thank you very much for that explanation. It was very clear and now I understand the importance of that decision, even with the “wise Latina’s” dissent. Well done!