The Ninth Circuit enjoined the government from implementing the travel ban in full, and the Supreme Court has temporarily stayed that injunction, meaning the travel ban is back in fuller effect.
Note it's in fuller effect, not full. That's because the Ninth Circus objected to two parts of the travel ban. One part they claimed was unconstitutional was limiting the family members who could visit their relatives in the US to close family members, not stuff like cousins.
The other part they claimed (falsely) was unconstitutional was the ban on refugees -- the Ninth Circus claimed that if there was a refugee resettlement group offering "formal assurances" on behalf of the refugee (that is, he's not a terrorist, etc.), it is unconstitutional to ban that refugee.
I have no idea how the hell they came up that special "some non-government group says it's okay so that overrides the US government's decision" doctrine.
The Trump Administration has chosen to only challenge the injunction as to the second claim of the Ninth Circuit (refugees with "formal assurances" of a sponsoring refugee resettlement group), and has passed on challenging the second claim (that family members permitted to visit must be "close" family members as the Trump Administration defined them).
However, even this limited stay-of-injunction may only be in effect as the Supreme Court weighs whether to permit the injunction to remain in place until the case is decided fully on the merits.
The Supreme Court will hear the cases (there are two cases, which they've consolidated into one big case) on Oct. 10th.
