As I recall, when the travel ban was first ex-ordered it called for it to be in place 90 days because that time period would give the gov’t time to revamp the vetting process, yadda cubed. It has now been more than 90 days since the ban was proposed. It seems opponents of the ban could now challenge it by asking: Has anything significant been done to revamp the vetting process in the 90 days since the ban was proposed?
If the admin says yes, we’ve done this, that and the other thing, then it would seem opponents of the ban could say, well, if you’ve done these important things despite not having the travel ban, why do you think you still need the travel ban?
If the admin says no, i.e. says that in the last 90 days they have not done anything significant to revamp vetting process, then it seems opponents could say that that lack of action pretty much shows that the admin is not serious about revamping and therefore the real intent of the ban must have been discriminatory.
A third way could be that the admin would say, well, we’ve done some things but there are still other things we’d like to do, but can’t, unless that ban is in place. It would seem that opponents could then put the onus on the admin to explain (1) what those things are, (2) why they need a travel ban in place to do those thing, and (3) why do you still require 90 days to do fewer things than you were first going to do (fewer things because, as you just said, you’ve done some of them already).