The 9th circuit recently ruled against the US government in relation to Trump's executive order stopping immigration from 7 countries. However this case was an appeal against a temporary restraining order from a federal court. The federal court case will now move to a full consideration.
What is the point of appealing the 9th circuit ruling to the Supreme Court when it is about such a temporary ruling of a lower federal court? Even if the government wins it won't be relevant any more.
Precedent.
Remember, Roe vs Wade was decided almost three years after the child in question was born. It was argued that because the child had already been born, Roe would not be affected by the ruling and as such did not present a actual case or controversy. However, due to the timescales that the court works on, often years just to reach the supreme court, and then potentially years to for them to make a decision. The case fell under an established exception to the rule: one that allowed consideration of an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review."
Trump's Executive order, whatever its legality, is only for a relatively brief period of 120 days. This would mean that it may be impossible to review it before it is over. This could create a situation that is "capable of repetition, yet evading review."
What is the point of appealing the 9th circuit ruling to the Supreme Court when it is about such a temporary ruling of a lower federal court? Even if the government wins it won't be relevant any more.
The Supreme Court can also offer immediate relief, just as the appeals court could. I.e. they could remove the temporary restraining order and send the rest of the case back.
They usually don't act that quickly. However, they could if they wanted to do so. Note that Bush v. Gore was decided in a couple days. They voted on December 9th in response to an action on December 8th.
It's also possible that a particular Justice (Kennedy for the 9th) could end the temporary restraining order.
The executive order was, I believe, a short-term (yes, a relative term) hold on pretty much all immigrants from the named countries. A full hearing on a case can take weeks, months or even longer before a final ruling comes down.
So, if Trump issues an executive order putting a 90 day or even a 6 month hold on immigrants, a "temporary" stay for a case that takes 6 or more months to decide will render the case, itself, irrelevant, since Trump's Order would have expired, unenforced, before the case ever gets decided.
Leaving it in place essentially nullifies the Order, with the final ruling on the case only determining whether it was legal in the first place, not whether it can be carried out.
So, in a case like this, whether it is stayed or not while the case continues has a greater impact than, say, putting a hold on a law with no end-time built into it.
