Isn’t this just a Muslim ban?

Like his first travel bans, the president’s latest restriction mostly targets predominantly Muslim countries. But officials note that two non-Muslim countries — North Korea and Venezuela — are on the list this time. They say that should be proof that the latest ban was not designed to target one religion.

Critics are not convinced. They continue to point to Mr. Trump’s history of calling for a ban on Muslim entry into the United States. And they insist that the addition of two non-Muslim countries does little to alter the original intent of the restrictions: to keep Muslims from certain countries out of the United States.

“President Trump’s original sin of targeting Muslims cannot be cured by throwing other countries onto his enemies list,” Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said.

How involved was the White House in drafting the new travel ban?

When it comes to immigration issues, very little happens in the Trump administration without the direct input of Stephen Miller, the president’s senior policy adviser, and Jeff Sessions, the attorney general. But administration officials said the process of selecting countries for travel restrictions involved scores of career bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

Officials said information collected by the agencies helped generate a recommendation from the secretary of homeland security to the president. On Friday, Mr. Trump met at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club with officials from the agencies, legal advisers and Mr. Sessions to make a final decision.

So what will happen now in the courts?

The Supreme Court asked lawyers in the case involving the previous ban to submit briefs by Oct. 5 addressing “whether, or to what extent, the proclamation” may render the case moot. The court also asked for briefings on a question not addressed in the proclamation, concerning the earlier ban’s suspension of the nation’s refugee program. That suspension is scheduled to expire next month. On that question, too, the court asked the parties to explain whether the issue would soon be moot.

By canceling the arguments for now, the court indicated that it may never decide the case. “The cases are removed from the oral argument calendar, pending further order of the court,” the court said.