 of the preliminary injunction, as we did in

our November 13, 2017 order on the Government’s motion for emergency stay.

See Hawai‘i v. Trump, 2017 WL 5343014, at *1. We then wrote:

      The preliminary injunction is stayed except as to “foreign nationals who
      have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity
      in the United States,” as set out below.

      The injunction remains in force as to foreign nationals who have a
      “close familial relationship” with a person in the United States. Such
      persons include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-
      in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. “As for entities,
      the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the
      ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [Proclamation
      9645].”

Id. (internal citations omitted).
      We again limit the scope of the district court’s injunction to those persons

who have a credible bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United

States. The injunction remains in force as to foreign nationals who have a “close

familial relationship” with a person in the United States, including grandparents,

grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and

cousins. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed

in the ordinary course of business, rather than for the purpose of evading the

Proclamation.

                          IV.       Establishment Clause Claim




                                           69
      Plaintiffs argue that the Proclamation also violates the Establishment Clause

of the United States Constitution. They urge us to adopt the view taken by the en

banc Fourth Circuit in its review of EO-2 that “the reasonable observer would

likely conclude that EO-2’s primary purpose [was] to exclude persons from the

United States on the basis of their religious beliefs.” IRAP, 857 F.3d at 601.

      Because w