[DannyTN]

One thing I don’t understand...

The restraining order blocks 5a-c and 5e. But 5d says 50,000 refugees is detrimental to the US and halts it! And that wasn’t blocked?

Am I reading it wrong. Or is the refugee program blocked in it’s entirety?

Of course, restraining order against 3c stops the travel ban.

Headlines say refugees are flooding in from the 7 states. But are they refugees are people who already had visas?

[OddLane]

I could be mistaken, but I believe the EO is blocked in its entirety.

There's even a part of a decision where they explain why it's impossible for them to simply strike down individual allegedly problematic parts.

[OddLane]

That’s a reasonable enough ruling, as far as it goes, but it would normally not give them standing to challenge other aspects of the executive order in which they have no concrete interest, such as the 120-day suspension of the refugee program (Section 5(a)), the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees (Section 5(c)), or the provisions of the order requiring future consideration of religious-minority status for refugees claiming religious persecution (Sections 5(b) and 5(e)).

Given that the appellate court upheld the injunction against all of those provisions, it had a duty under the Supreme Court’s decision in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), to decide whether each plaintiff has standing to challenge each government action. It did not.

[OddLane]

I stand corrected.

It turns out that the refugee reduction isn't impacted by the TRO.