As previously reported, last week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in State of Hawaii v. Trump affirmed a district court’s decision on the scope of President Trump’s second travel ban executive order. The decision essentially found that the executive branch had read an earlier order by the Supreme Court too narrowly both as to the travelers and refugees who could be excluded under the travel ban pending a Supreme Court decision on the merits. In a filing on Sept. 11, the government asked Justice Kennedy, the Circuit Justice for the 9th Circuit, to stay the portion of the 9th Circuit’s mandate dealing with refugees who are still covered by the travel ban. The next day, Justice Kennedy issued an order temporarily staying that portion of the 9th Circuit’s mandate. Today, the state of Hawaii filed its response, arguing in part:The Government has returned to this Court, for the third time, to ask that it superintend the application of the injunction in this case. The first time the Government was here … this Court set forth the legal standard that governs the injunction of Executive Order 13,780 …: Any foreign national with a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. entity—that is, a relationship that is “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course”—is protected from EO-2’s travel and refugee bans…. The second time, on July 19, 2017, the Court denied the Government’s request to “clarify” that the injunction does not apply to refugees who have received a formal assurance from a refugee resettlement agency, instead directing the Ninth Circuit to resolve the question….The Ninth Circuit faithfully applied both of those directives. It determined … that a refugee has a “bona fide” relationship with a resettlement agency that signs a formal, written assurance to provide for her housing, food, and other essentials of life. And the Ninth Circuit rejected the Government’s invitation to treat this Court’s July 19, 2017 stay as the merits decision the Court had declined to issue; instead, it performed the diligent analysis that is expected of an appellate court.SCOTUSblog reports on developments.UPDATE: On Sept. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order (full text) staying the 9th Circuit’s mandate as it applies to refugees covered by a formal assurance of placement from a resettlement agency. Refugees from countries covered by the travel ban whose only connection to the United States is such an assurance of placement will be able to be excluded, at least until the Supreme Court decides on the validity of the travel ban on the merits this term.