We have action on the travel ban. "We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part."
Supreme Court will review Trump travel ban, allows it to take effect in most instances.
On the stay in part: "We grant the Government's applications to stay the injunctions" blocking the implementation of the ban "to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Section 2(c)" -- the provision suspending entry from six countries -- "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.""We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated."
So this means that the government can enforce the travel ban with regard to people who don't have a relationship to the United States, but not with regard to the named challengers or people like them -- for example, who have relatives who want to come.
Here's some more language from the travel ban decision: The court emphasizes that the travel ban affects the challengers who want their relatives to come to the US, as well as -- for example -- the students who want to attend the University of Hawaii.
But, the court says, the injunctions are much broader than that, and prohibit the ban from being enforced against people who have no connection to the United States, which is a different calculus. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national." "So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of Section 2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below."
Travel Ban decision on the stays in per curiam, and no liberal justice dissents from the portion striking down the preliminary injunction in part. Opinion sounds an awful lot like the Chief.