Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

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

7 

Per Curiam 

On  June  14,  evidently  in  response  to  the  argument  that
§2(c) was about to expire, President Trump issued a mem-
orandum to Executive Branch officials.  The memorandum 
declared  the  effective  date  of  each  enjoined  provision  of
EO–2  to  be  the  date  on  which  the  injunctions  in  these 
cases “are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.”
Presidential  Memorandum  for  the  Secretary  of  State,  the 
Attorney  General,  the  Secretary  of  Homeland  Security,
and the Director of National Intelligence (June 14, 2017). 
The  memorandum  further  provided  that,  to  the  extent 
necessary, it “should be construed to amend the Executive
Order.”  Ibid.  The Government takes the view that, if any 
mootness  problem  existed  previously,  the  President’s 
memorandum has cured it. 

The  parties  have  since  completed  briefing,  with  the
Government requesting that we construe its supplemental
brief  in  Hawaii  as  a  petition  for  certiorari.    There  is  no 
objection  from  respondents,  and  we  do  so.  Both  petitions
for  certiorari  and  both  stay  applications  are  accordingly 
ripe for consideration. 

II 

The  Government  seeks  review  on  several  issues.

  In 
IRAP,  the  Government  argues  that  respondent  Doe  lacks 
standing  to  challenge  §2(c).*    The  Government  also  con-
tends  that  Doe’s  Establishment  Clause  claim  fails  on  the 
merits.  In  its  view,  the  Fourth  Circuit  should  not  have 
asked  whether  §2(c)  has  a  primarily  religious  purpose.
The  court  instead  should  have  upheld  EO–2  because  it 
rests on the “facially legitimate and bona fide” justification
of protecting national security.  Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 

—————— 

* On June 24, 2017, this Court received a letter from counsel for Doe 
advising  that  Doe’s  wife  received  an  immigrant  visa  on  or  about  June
22, 2017.  The parties may address the significance of that development
at the merits stage.  It does not affect our analysis of the stay issues in 
these cases.