Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 71.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Fed.  Reg.  8977  (2017)  (EO–1),  entitled  “Protecting  the 
Nation  From  Foreign  Terrorist  Entry  Into  the  United 
States.”    As  he  signed  it,  President  Trump  read  the  title,
looked up, and said “We all know what that means.”  App.
124.  That  same  day,  President  Trump  explained  to  the
media that, under EO–1, Christians would be given prior- 
ity for entry as refugees into the United States.  In particu­
lar, he bemoaned the fact that in the past, “[i]f you were a
Muslim [refugee from Syria] you could come in, but if you
were  a  Christian,  it  was  almost  impossible.”  Id.,  at  125. 
Considering  that  past  policy  “very  unfair,”  President 
Trump  explained  that  EO–1  was  designed  “to  help”  the 
Christians in Syria.  Ibid.  The following day, one of Presi­
dent  Trump’s  key  advisers  candidly  drew  the  connection 
between  EO–1  and  the  “Muslim  ban”  that  the  President 
had  pledged  to  implement  if  elected.  Ibid.  According  to 
that  adviser,  “[W]hen  [Donald  Trump]  first  announced  it,
he  said,  ‘Muslim  ban.’    He  called  me  up.  He  said,  ‘Put  a 
commission  together.  Show  me  the  right  way  to  do  it 
legally.’ ”  Ibid. 

On  February  3,  2017,  the  United  States  District  Court 

for  the  Western  District  of  Washington  enjoined  the  en­
forcement  of  EO–1.    See  Washington  v.  Trump,  2017  WL 
462040,  *3.    The  Ninth  Circuit  denied  the  Government’s 
request to stay that injunction.  Washington v. Trump, 847 
F. 3d 1151, 1169 (2017) (per curiam).  Rather than appeal
the  Ninth  Circuit’s  decision,  the  Government  declined  to 
continue defending EO–1 in court and instead announced 
that the President intended to issue a new executive order 
to replace EO–1.

On  March  6,  2017,  President  Trump  issued  that  new 

executive order, which, like its predecessor, imposed tem­
porary  entry  and  refugee  bans.  See  Exec.  Order  No. 
13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (EO–2).  One of the President’s 
senior advisers publicly explained that EO–2 would “have 
the  same  basic  policy  outcome”  as  EO–1,  and  that  any