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

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

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

tional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard
to  an  unidentified,  unnamed  group  of  foreign  nationals
abroad.  No  class  has  been  certified,  and  neither  party 
asks  for  the  scope  of  relief  that  the  Court  today  provides. 
“[I]njunctive  relief  should  be  no  more  burdensome  to  the 
defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the 
plaintiffs”  in  the  case,  Califano  v.  Yamasaki,  442  U. S. 
682, 702 (1979) (emphasis added), because a court’s role is
“to  provide  relief ”  only  “to  claimants  . . .  who  have  suf-
fered,  or  will  imminently  suffer,  actual  harm.”    Lewis  v. 
Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 349 (1996).  In contrast, it is the role 
of  the  “political  branches”  to  “shape  the  institutions  of 
government  in  such  fashion  as  to  comply  with  the  laws 
and the Constitution.”  Ibid. 

Moreover,  I  fear  that  the  Court’s  remedy  will  prove
unworkable.    Today’s  compromise  will  burden  executive
officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt—
whether  individuals  from  the  six  affected  nations  who 
wish  to  enter  the  United  States  have  a  sufficient  connec-
tion to a person or entity in this country.  See ante, at 11– 
12.  The  compromise  also  will  invite  a  flood  of  litigation 
until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties 
and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes
a  “bona  fide  relationship,”  who  precisely  has  a  “credible
claim”  to  that  relationship,  and  whether  the  claimed
relationship  was  formed  “simply  to  avoid  §2(c)”  of  Execu-
tive Order No. 13780, ante, at 11, 12.  And litigation of the
factual  and  legal  issues  that  are  likely  to  arise  will  pre-
sumably  be  directed  to  the  two  District  Courts  whose 
initial  orders  in  these  cases  this  Court  has  now— 
unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed 
as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.