Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Page Number: 10

10 

TRUMP v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
PROJECT
 
Per Curiam
 

decree  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  particular  case.”
Wright, supra, §2947, at 115.

Here, of course, we are not asked to grant a preliminary 
injunction, but to stay one.  In assessing the lower courts’ 
exercise of equitable discretion, we bring to bear an equi-
table judgment of our own.  Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 
433 (2009).  Before issuing a stay, “[i]t is ultimately neces-
sary  . . .  to  balance  the  equities—to  explore  the  relative
harms  to  applicant  and  respondent,  as  well  as  the  inter-
ests  of  the  public  at  large.”    Barnes  v.  E-Systems,  Inc. 
Group  Hospital  Medical  &  Surgical  Ins.  Plan,  501  U. S. 
1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in chambers) (internal quota-
tion  marks  omitted).    This  Court  may,  in  its  discretion, 
tailor a stay so that it operates with respect to only “some
portion of the proceeding.”  Nken, supra, at 428. 

The courts below took account of the equities in fashion-
ing  interim  relief,  focusing  specifically  on  the  concrete
burdens that would fall on Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii if 
§2(c)  were  enforced.    They  reasoned  that  §2(c)  would  “di-
rectly  affec[t]”  Doe  and  Dr.  Elshikh  by  delaying  entry  of
their  family  members  to  the  United  States.  IRAP,  857 
F. 3d, at 585, n. 11; see Hawaii, 2017 WL 2529640, at *7– 
*8,  *24.  The  Ninth  Circuit  concluded  that  §2(c)  would 
harm  the  State  by  preventing  students  from  the  desig- 
nated nations who had been admitted to the University of 
Hawaii  from  entering  this  country.    These  hardships,  the
courts reasoned, were sufficiently weighty and immediate 
to  outweigh  the  Government’s  interest  in  enforcing  §2(c).
Having  adopted  this  view  of  the  equities,  the  courts  ap-
proved  injunctions  that  covered  not  just  respondents,  but 
parties  similarly  situated  to  them—that  is,  people  or 
entities in the United States who have relationships with 
foreign  nationals  abroad,  and  whose  rights  might  be  af-
fected if those foreign nationals were excluded.  See Man-
del, 408 U. S., at 763–765 (permitting American plaintiffs
to  challenge  the  exclusion  of  a  foreign  national  on  the