13 September, 2017
According to the Justice Department, the decision would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.
In establishing guidance for enforcement of the travel ban, the Trump administration concluded that refugees who had received assurances of assistance from resettlement agencies in the USA did not have a sufficiently strong relationship with an American entity to warrant exemption from the ban.
If the appeals court ruling takes effect, it could apply to almost 24,000 refugees.
Trump's travel moratorium, which temporarily bars visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, stirred protests across the country earlier this year when it was first implemented.
The court acted after the Trump administration urged the court to act quickly to keep the refugee ban in place.
The government had repeatedly argued that merely possessing such an assurance of resettlement does not give those refugees a sufficient link to this country to enable them to enter.
The President's administration had asked justices to continue to allow strict enforcement of a temporary travel ban on refugees from around the world.
The same order included a 120-day ban on refugees and both orders were blocked by the lower courts.
The South Dakota Supreme Court has denied a request to hear an appeal in a case involving the controversial federal immigrant-investor program known as EB-5.
Some very liberal United States courts have limited the scope of that order, expect all of them to be overturned. That broader question, on the merits of the Trump order, is scheduled to be taken up by the Justices on October 10, after the court's new term had opened on October 2.
The attorneys general of California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota filed a joint lawsuit at a federal court in northern California, following a similar decision last week by a coalition of 15 states as well as the District of Colombia that houses the capital Washington.