Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

8 

TRUMP v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
PROJECT
 
Per Curiam
 

U. S.  753,  770  (1972).    In  addition,  the  Fourth  Circuit 
erred  by  focusing  on  the  President’s  campaign-trail  com-
ments  to  conclude  that  §2(c)—religiously  neutral  on  its
face—nonetheless  has  a  principally  religious  purpose.    At 
the  very  least,  the  Government  argues,  the  injunction  is
too broad. 

In  Hawaii,  the  Government  likewise  argues  that  re-
spondents Hawaii and Dr. Elshikh lack standing and that 
(at  a  minimum)  the  injunction  should  be  narrowed.  The 
Government’s  principal  merits  contention  pertains  to  a 
statutory  provision  authorizing  the  President  to  “suspend 
the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” to this country
“[w]henever  [he]  finds  that  the  entry  of  any  aliens  or  of
any  class  of  aliens  . . .  would  be  detrimental  to  the  inter-
ests of the United States.”  8 U. S. C. §1182(f ).  The Ninth 
Circuit held that “[t]here is no sufficient finding in [EO–2]
that  the  entry  of  the  excluded  classes  would  be  detri-
mental  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States.”    Hawaii, 
2017 WL 2529640, at *14.  This, the Government argues,
constitutes  impermissible  judicial  second-guessing  of  the 
President’s judgment on a matter of national security.

In  addition  to  seeking  certiorari,  the  Government  asks
the  Court  to  stay  the  injunctions  entered  below,  thereby
permitting the enjoined provisions to take effect.  Accord-
ing  to  the  Government,  it  is  likely  to  suffer  irreparable
harm unless a stay issues.  Focusing mostly on §2(c), and 
pointing to the descriptions of conditions in the six desig-
nated  nations,  the  Government  argues  that  a  90-day 
pause on entry is necessary to prevent potentially danger-
ous individuals from entering the United States while the 
Executive  reviews  the  adequacy  of  information  provided 
by  foreign  governments  in  connection  with  visa  adjudica-
tions.  Additionally,  the  Government  asserts,  the  tempo-
rary bar is  needed to reduce the Executive’s investigative
burdens while this review proceeds.