I havenb't read it yet, except to see that it's unanimous, and 29 pages long.
I have read the decision, and it is unmitigated horsesh#t.
Read some of the footnotes and the fact that the Court adds to the people affected the illegal aliens who are here illegally but who have due process rights, the decision reads like they were smoking marijuana while dictating it.
From page 28:
By contrast, the States have offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple “other parties interested in the proceeding.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).
When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms.
See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976))).
This is all these damned universities. Page 28 I quoted above. Here is page 10:
Specifically, the States allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order’s effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries. These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit.
Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.
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.
In summary it says, the "feelings" of refugees and their ability to come to the US vastly out weighs any trifling concerns about American security.
In fact it says that no person from the 7 countries has ever committed an act of violence on US soil.