Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

court.  The  District  Courts  for  the  Districts  of  Maryland
and  Hawaii  entered  nationwide  preliminary  injunctions 
barring  enforcement  of  the  entry  suspension,  and  the
respective  Courts  of  Appeals  upheld  those  injunctions, 
albeit  on  different  grounds.    International  Refugee  Assis-
tance Project (IRAP) v. Trump, 857 F. 3d 554 (CA4 2017); 
Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F. 3d 741 (CA9 2017) (per curiam).
This Court granted certiorari and stayed the injunctions—
allowing  the  entry  suspension  to  go  into  effect—with 
respect to foreign nationals who lacked a “credible claim of 
a  bona  fide  relationship”  with  a  person  or  entity  in  the
United  States.  Trump  v.  IRAP,  582  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017) 
(per  curiam)  (slip  op.,  at  12).    The  temporary  restrictions 
in EO–2 expired before this Court took any action, and we 
vacated  the  lower  court  decisions  as  moot.    Trump  v. 
IRAP,  583  U. S.  ___  (2017);  Trump  v.  Hawaii,  583  U. S. 
___ (2017).

On  September  24,  2017,  after  completion  of  the  world-
wide review, the President issued the Proclamation before 
us—Proclamation  No.  9645,  Enhancing  Vetting  Capabili-
ties and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the 
United  States  by  Terrorists  or  Other  Public-Safety
Threats.  82  Fed.  Reg.  45161.    The  Proclamation  (as  its
title  indicates)  sought  to  improve  vetting  procedures  by
identifying ongoing deficiencies in the information needed 
to assess whether nationals of particular countries present 
“public safety threats.”  §1(a).  To further that purpose, the 
Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of 
eight  foreign  states  whose  systems  for  managing  and 
sharing  information  about  their  nationals  the  President
deemed inadequate. 

The  Proclamation  described  how  foreign  states  were
selected  for  inclusion  based  on  the  review  undertaken 
pursuant to EO–2.  As part of that review, the Department 
of  Homeland  Security  (DHS),  in  consultation  with  the 
State  Department  and  several  intelligence  agencies,