Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

individuals  (Dr.  Ismail  Elshikh,  John  Doe  #1,  and  John 
Doe #2), and the Muslim Association of Hawaii.  The State 
operates  the  University  of  Hawaii  system,  which  recruits
students  and  faculty  from  the  designated  countries.  The 
three  individual  plaintiffs  are  U. S.  citizens  or  lawful 
permanent residents who have relatives from Iran, Syria,
and  Yemen  applying  for  immigrant  or  nonimmigrant 
visas.  The  Association  is  a  nonprofit  organization  that 
operates a mosque in Hawaii.

Plaintiffs  challenged 

the  Proclamation—except  as 
applied  to  North  Korea  and  Venezuela—on  several 
grounds.  As  relevant  here,  they  argued  that  the  Procla-
mation  contravenes  provisions  in  the  Immigration  and
Nationality  Act  (INA),  66  Stat.  187,  as  amended.    Plain-
tiffs  further  claimed  that  the  Proclamation  violates  the 
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it 
was  motivated  not  by  concerns  pertaining  to  national
security but by animus toward Islam. 

The  District  Court  granted  a  nationwide  preliminary
injunction  barring  enforcement  of  the  entry  restrictions. 
The  court  concluded  that  the  Proclamation  violated  two 
provisions of the INA: §1182(f ), because the President did 
not make sufficient findings that the entry of the covered
foreign  nationals  would  be  detrimental  to  the  national 
interest,  and  §1152(a)(1)(A),  because  the  policy  discrimi-
nates  against  immigrant  visa  applicants  on  the  basis  of 
nationality. 
265  F. Supp.  3d  1140,  1155–1159  (Haw. 
2017).  The Government requested expedited briefing and 
sought a stay pending appeal.  The Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth  Circuit  granted  a  partial  stay,  permitting  enforce-
ment of the Proclamation with respect to foreign nationals
who lack a bona fide relationship with the United States. 
This  Court  then  stayed  the  injunction  in  full  pending
disposition  of  the  Government’s  appeal.  583  U. S.  ___ 
(2017).

The Court of Appeals affirmed.  The court first held that