Trump. v. International Refugee Assistance Project

Supreme Court of the United States
137 S. Ct. 2080, 198 L. Ed. 2d 643 (2017)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When balancing the equities for a stay of a preliminary injunction, the President's authority to suspend entry of foreign nationals for national security reasons may be enforced against those who lack a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, but not against those who can credibly claim such a relationship.

Facts:

President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13769 (EO-1), which suspended entry of nationals from seven countries and altered refugee policy.
After lower courts blocked EO-1, the government revoked it and issued a revised order, Executive Order 13780 (EO-2).
EO-2 directed a 90-day suspension of entry for nationals from six countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, citing national security concerns.
EO-2 also suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days and capped the total number of refugees for the fiscal year at 50,000.
The order provided a mechanism for case-by-case waivers of the entry bar.
One respondent, John Doe #1, was a lawful permanent resident whose Iranian wife sought to enter the U.S.
Another respondent, Dr. Ismail Elshikh, was a U.S. citizen whose Syrian mother-in-law sought to enter the U.S.
Respondent State of Hawaii alleged harm because the order would prevent students who had been admitted to the University of Hawaii from entering the country.

Procedural Posture:

Respondents filed separate lawsuits in federal district courts challenging Executive Order No. 13780 (EO-2).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the 90-day entry suspension.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii entered a broader nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of both the entry suspension and the refugee provisions.
The U.S. Government, the defendant, appealed both injunctions to their respective circuit courts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, acting as the intermediate appellate court, largely upheld the Maryland injunction.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, acting as the intermediate appellate court, largely upheld the Hawaii injunction but narrowed its scope.
The U.S. Government, as petitioner, filed petitions for a writ of certiorari and applications to stay both injunctions with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Should the nationwide preliminary injunctions, which block enforcement of an Executive Order temporarily suspending entry for foreign nationals from six designated countries and for all refugees, be stayed pending a full review on the merits by the Supreme Court?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, in part. The preliminary injunctions should be stayed with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, but the injunctions will remain in place for those with such a relationship. The Court balanced the equities, weighing the government's compelling interest in national security against the hardships faced by U.S. persons and entities. The government's interest is at its peak when dealing with foreign nationals who have no connection to the United States. Conversely, denying entry to those with established relationships—such as close family members, students admitted to a university, or workers with job offers—imposes concrete hardships on American parties. Therefore, the court crafted a compromise that allows the Executive Order to take effect for foreign nationals without U.S. ties while protecting the interests of those with a credible claim to a bona fide relationship.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Thomas

Yes, fully. The preliminary injunctions should be stayed in their entirety. The government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits and will suffer irreparable harm to national security interests absent a stay. The balance of equities clearly favors the government. The majority's 'bona fide relationship' test is an unworkable compromise that will burden executive officials and invite a flood of litigation to define its vague terms. The role of the court is to provide relief to the specific plaintiffs in the case, not to create a broad, unidentified class of foreign nationals who are exempt from the Executive Order.

Analysis:

This decision introduced the 'bona fide relationship' standard as a significant, albeit temporary, judicial check on broad executive power in immigration and national security matters. By creating a distinction between foreign nationals with and without ties to the U.S., the Court crafted a compromise that gave partial deference to the President's national security claims while simultaneously protecting the concrete interests of U.S. persons and entities. This ruling signaled that while the President's authority in this domain is substantial, it is not absolute when it directly harms the relationships and commitments of those within the United States. It effectively set the terms of the legal and public debate until the Court reached a final decision on the merits in a subsequent term.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Trump. v. International Refugee Assistance Project (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"