Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 88.0

24 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the equities tips in their favor.  Against plaintiffs’ concrete
allegations  of  serious  harm,  the  Government  advances
only  nebulous  national-security  concerns.    Although  na­
tional  security  is  unquestionably  an  issue  of  paramount 
public importance, it is not “a talisman” that the Govern­
ment  can  use  “to  ward  off  inconvenient  claims—a  ‘label’ 
used to ‘cover a multitude of sins.’ ”  Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 
U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017)  (slip  op.,  at  20).    That  is  especially 
true  here,  because,  as  noted,  the  Government’s  other 
statutory tools, including the existing rigorous individual­
ized  vetting  process,  already  address  the  Proclamation’s
purported  national-security  concerns.    See  supra,  at  19– 
22. 

Finally,  plaintiffs  and  their  amici  have  convincingly
established  that  “an  injunction  is  in  the  public  interest.” 
Winter,  555  U. S.,  at  20.    As  explained  by  the  scores  of 
amici  who  have  filed  briefs  in  support  of  plaintiffs,  the 
Proclamation has deleterious effects on our higher educa­
tion  system;8  national  security;9  healthcare;10  artistic 
culture;11 and the Nation’s technology industry and overall 
economy.12    Accordingly,  the  Court  of  Appeals  correctly 
affirmed, 
in  part,  the  District  Court’s  preliminary
injunction.13 

—————— 

8 See Brief for American Council on Education et al. as Amici Curiae; 
Brief for Colleges and Universities as Amici Curiae; Brief for New York 
University as Amicus Curiae. 

9 See  Brief  for  Retired  Generals  and  Admirals  of  the  U. S.  Armed 
Forces as Amici Curiae; Brief for Former National Security Officials as 
Amici Curiae. 

10 See  Brief  for  Association  of  American  Medical  Colleges  as  Amicus 

Curiae. 

11 See  Brief  for  Association  of  Art  Museum  Directors  et  al.  as  Amici 

Curiae. 

12 See Brief for U. S. Companies as Amici Curiae; Brief for Massachu­

setts Technology Leadership Council, Inc., as Amicus Curiae. 

13 Because the majority concludes that plaintiffs have failed to show a
likelihood of success on the merits, it takes no position on “the propriety