Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Page Number: 15

2 

TRUMP v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

PROJECT
 
THOMAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

absent  a  stay.”  Ibid.  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted). 
Where a party seeks a stay pending certiorari, as here, the
applicant satisfies the first factor only if it can show both
“a  reasonable  probability  that  certiorari  will  be  granted”
and “a significant possibility that the judgment below will
be  reversed.”  Barnes  v.  E-Systems,  Inc.  Group  Hospital 
Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1991) 
(Scalia,  J.,  in  chambers).  When  we  determine  that  those 
critical  factors  are  satisfied,  we  must  “balance  the  equi-
ties”  by  “explor[ing]  the  relative  harms  to  applicant  and 
respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.” 
Id.,  at  1304–1305  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted);  cf. 
Nken,  supra,  at  435  (noting  that  the  factors  of  “assessing 
the  harm  to  the  opposing  party  and  weighing  the  public 
interest”  “merge  when  the  Government  is  the  opposing
party”).

The Government has satisfied the standard for issuing a 
stay  pending  certiorari.    We  have,  of  course,  decided  to 
grant  certiorari.    See  ante,  at  8–9.   And  I  agree  with  the
Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made
a  strong  showing  that  it  is  likely  to  succeed  on  the  mer-
its—that  is,  that  the  judgments  below  will  be  reversed. 
The  Government  has  also  established  that  failure  to  stay 
the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering 
with its “compelling need to provide for the Nation’s secu-
rity.”  Ante,  at  13.  Finally,  weighing  the  Government’s 
interest  in  preserving  national  security  against  the  hard-
ships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry 
into  the  country,  the  balance  of  the  equities  favors  the 
Government.  I would thus grant the Government’s appli-
cations for a stay in their entirety.

Reasonable minds may disagree on where the balance of 
equities lies as between the Government and respondents
in  these  cases.    It  would  have  been  reasonable,  perhaps, 
for  the  Court  to  have  left  the  injunctions  in place  only  as 
to respondents themselves.  But the Court takes the addi-