Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

TRUMP v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
PROJECT
 
Per Curiam
 

cations by June 12 and respondents in IRAP to file a brief 
in opposition to the Government’s petition for certiorari by
the same day.

Respondents’  June  12  filings  injected  a  new  issue  into
the cases.  In IRAP, respondents argued that the suspen-
sion  of  entry  in  §2(c)  would  expire  on  June  14.    Section 
2(c), they reasoned, directs that entry “be suspended for 90
days from the effective date of ” EO–2.  The “effective date” 
of  EO–2  was  March  16.  §14.    Although  courts  had  en-
joined portions of EO–2, they had not altered its effective 
date, nor so much as mentioned §14.  Thus, even though it
had  never  been  enforced,  the  entry  suspension  would 
expire 90 days from March 16: June 14.  At that time, the 
dispute over §2(c) would become moot.  Brief in Opposition
13–14. 

On  the  same  day  respondents  filed,  the  Ninth  Circuit
ruled  in  Hawaii.  ___  F. 3d  ___,  2017  WL  2529640  (June 
12, 2017) (per curiam).  A unanimous panel held in favor 
of respondents the State of Hawaii and Dr. Ismail Elshikh, 
an  American  citizen  and  imam  whose  Syrian  mother-in-
law is seeking entry to this country.  Rather than rely on 
the constitutional grounds supporting the District Court’s
decision,  the  court  held  that  portions  of  EO–2  likely  ex-
ceeded the President’s authority under the INA.  On that 
basis it upheld the injunction as to the §2(c) entry suspen-
sion,  the  §6(a)  suspension  of  refugee  admissions,  and  the
§6(b)  refugee  cap.  The  Ninth  Circuit,  like  the  Fourth 
Circuit,  concluded  that  the  injunction  should  bar  enforce-
ment  of  these  provisions  across  the  board,  because  they 
would  violate  the  INA  “in  all  applications.”  Id.,  at  *28. 
The  court  did,  however,  narrow  the  injunction  so  that  it 
would  not  bar  the  Government  from  undertaking  the
internal executive reviews directed by EO–2.

We granted the parties’ requests for supplemental brief-
ing addressed to the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  Before 
those briefs were filed, however, the ground shifted again.