Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

11 

Per Curiam 

ground  that  the  exclusion  violated  their  own  First 
Amendment rights).

But the injunctions reach much further than that: They
also  bar  enforcement  of  §2(c)  against  foreign  nationals 
abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. 
The  equities  relied  on  by  the  lower  courts  do  not  balance
the  same  way  in  that  context.    Denying  entry  to  such  a 
foreign  national  does  not  burden  any  American  party  by
reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. 
And  the  courts  below  did  not  conclude  that  exclusion 
in  such  circumstances  would  impose  any  legally  relevant
hardship  on  the  foreign  national  himself.    See  id.,  at  762 
(“[A]n  unadmitted  and  nonresident  alien  . . .  ha[s]  no 
constitutional right of entry to this country”).  So whatever 
burdens  may  result  from  enforcement  of  §2(c)  against  a
foreign national who lacks any connection to this country,
they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the
hardships identified by the courts below.

At  the  same  time,  the  Government’s  interest  in  enforc-
ing  §2(c),  and  the  Executive’s  authority  to  do  so,  are  un-
doubtedly  at  their  peak  when  there  is  no  tie  between  the
foreign  national  and  the  United  States.    Indeed,  EO–2 
itself  distinguishes  between  foreign  nationals  who  have 
some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who 
do  not,  by  establishing  a  case-by-case  waiver  system  pri-
marily  for  the  benefit  of  individuals  in  the  former  cate- 
gory.  See,  e.g.,  §§3(c)(i)–(vi).  The  interest  in  preserving
national  security  is  “an  urgent  objective  of  the  highest 
order.”  Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 
28 (2010).  To prevent the Government from pursuing that 
objective  by  enforcing  §2(c)  against  foreign  nationals
unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure
its  interests,  without  alleviating  obvious  hardship  to 
anyone else. 

We  accordingly  grant  the  Government’s  stay  applica-
tions in part and narrow the scope of the injunctions as to