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!
Welcome. The SC accepted and adopted the DOJ’s position on how to go forward on this case, (and the Hawaii decision coming up). After the Sept EO3 was released the SC asked all parties to file a letter giving their views on what the next step should be. The question was: is the case moot and what should the SC do if it is? The letters were filed on 5 Oct. The plaintiffs argued the cases weren’t moot but if the court thought they were that the SC should revoke the cert. but not dismiss the cases, (Sotomayer’s position). I’m glad the SC went along with the DOJ.
BTW the revised complaint by Hawaii doesn’t have any parties that would have standing because no one has a visa request pending that has been denied under the new rules. (all are speculative not actual injuries. Hawaii is still using the “loss of revenue” issue for colleges and tourism as their supposed standing/injuries. All in all a good read if you want to see what grasping at straws is like.