Where Trump’s travel ban stands

The San Francisco appeals court argued that the states have legal standing to bring a lawsuit because they proved that their residents were directly being harmed by the policy. The plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota, cited green card holders who were stranded abroad, families who were separated and public university scholars and students who feared they would be unable to leave the country and return back to the U.S.

Therefore, the new policy seems almost certain to include a carve-out for legal permanent residents and other visa holders, such as those already living in the U.S. That could remove some of the states’ legal standing in the challenge, according to law scholars.

But rescinding the initial travel ban doesn’t necessarily guarantee that the courts will throw out the pending lawsuits against it. Judges will have to decide whether the new executive order is enough to render existing litigation moot.

If the plaintiffs argue that the policies look too similar and maintain that the states could still be in jeopardy, the courts could keep the same cases going but adjust them to consider the new language.