[FredZarguna]

They lean heavily on a literal interpretation of the original order, claiming that the inclusion of US persons in the EO makes it unlikely that the Government's case would prevail, therefore there is no reason to grant relief on an emergency basis.

However, they veer extremely close to claiming that non-citizens have Constitutional rights. Most particularly, they claim that a religious test implicit in the First Amendment has never been shown not to apply to US persons. This is very dangerous territory, indeed.

Almost as problematically, they claim that the states have standing to sue on behalf of their universities, which have standing to sue because of their students and faculties. Also, an extremely alarming claim, IMHO; how long does the chain of standing advocating on someone else's behalf get to extend?.

Finally, they conclude on the basis of a "general public interest." (I guess even they realize how weak their actual harm claims are.) Truly an awful hodge-podge of sophistry. And a Bush appointment went along with it. Disgusting.

[IrishBrigade]

how long does the chain of standing advocating on someone else’s behalf get to extend?

this is the most disturbing question in this imbroglio...