Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Page Number: 13

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

13 

Per Curiam 

utive  to  conclude  its  internal  work  and  provide  adequate 
notice  to  foreign  governments  within  the  90-day  life  of 
§2(c). 

C 
The  Hawaii  injunction  extends  beyond  §2(c)  to  bar 
enforcement of the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions 
and  the  §6(b)  refugee  cap.    In  our  view,  the  equitable
balance  struck  above  applies  in  this  context  as  well.    An 
American  individual  or  entity  that  has  a  bona  fide  rela-
tionship  with  a  particular  person  seeking  to  enter  the 
country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hard-
ship  if  that  person  is  excluded.    As  to  these  individuals 
and entities, we do not disturb the injunction.  But when it 
comes  to  refugees  who  lack  any  such  connection  to  the 
United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance 
tips  in  favor  of  the  Government’s  compelling  need  to  pro-
vide for the Nation’s security.  See supra, at 9–11; Haig v. 
Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 307 (1981).

The  Government’s  application  to  stay  the  injunction
with  respect  to  §§6(a)  and  (b)  is  accordingly  granted  in 
part.  Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individ-
ual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim
a  bona  fide  relationship  with  a  person  or  entity  in  the 
United States.  Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may 
not  be  excluded  pursuant  to  §6(b),  even  if  the  50,000-
person cap has been reached or exceeded.  As applied to all
other individuals, the provisions may take effect. 

* 
Accordingly, the petitions for certiorari are granted, and

* 

* 

the stay applications are granted in part. 

It is so ordered.