Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 87

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

23 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

suggesting  “that  the  Government  is  not  applying  the 
Proclamation  as  written,”  that  “waivers  are  not  being 
processed  in  an  ordinary  way,”  and  that  consular  and 
other  officials  “do  not,  in  fact,  have  discretion  to  grant
waivers”).

In  sum,  none  of  the  features  of  the  Proclamation  high­
lighted  by  the  majority  supports  the  Government’s  claim
that the Proclamation is genuinely and primarily rooted in 
a legitimate national-security interest.  What the unrebut­
ted evidence actually shows is that a reasonable observer 
would conclude, quite easily, that the primary purpose and 
function  of  the  Proclamation  is  to  disfavor  Islam  by  ban­
ning Muslims from entering our country. 

III 
As  the  foregoing  analysis  makes  clear,  plaintiffs  are
likely  to  succeed  on  the  merits  of  their  Establishment
Clause  claim.  To  obtain  a  preliminary  injunction,  how- 
ever, plaintiffs must also show that they are “likely to suffer
irreparable  harm  in  the  absence  of  preliminary  relief,” 
that “the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,” and that
“an injunction is in the public interest.”  Winter v. Natural 
Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,  555  U. S.  7,  20  (2008).
Plaintiffs readily clear those remaining hurdles.

First,  plaintiffs  have  shown  a  likelihood  of  irreparable
harm  in  the  absence  of  an  injunction.    As  the  District 
Court found, plaintiffs have adduced substantial evidence
showing that the Proclamation will result in “a multitude 
of  harms  that  are  not  compensable  with  monetary  dam­
ages  and  that  are  irreparable—among  them,  prolonged
separation from family members, constraints to recruiting
and  retaining  students  and  faculty  members  to  foster
diversity  and  quality  within  the  University  community, 
and  the  diminished  membership  of  the  [Muslim]  Associa­
tion.”  265 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1159 (Haw. 2017). 

Second, plaintiffs have demonstrated that the balance of