Trump. v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080

Background

President Trump issued Executive Order 13780 (EO‑2) on March 6, 2017, suspending entry for nationals of six countries for 90 days and pausing refugee admissions for 120 days while the Executive reviewed vetting procedures.
Respondents brought separate suits challenging EO‑2, obtaining preliminary injunctions from district courts that largely barred enforcement of §2(c) (90‑day suspension) and parts of §6 (refugee suspensions/cap).
The Fourth Circuit (en banc) affirmed a nationwide injunction against §2(c) largely on Establishment Clause grounds (purpose of excluding Muslims). The Ninth Circuit affirmed a nationwide injunction against §2(c) and parts of §6 on statutory (INA) grounds.
The Government sought certiorari and emergency stays from the Supreme Court; parties raised mootness concerns because §2(c)’s 90‑day term would have expired on June 14, 2017, and the President issued a June 14 memorandum resetting effective dates.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, consolidated the cases for argument, and—after balancing equities—partially granted the Government’s stay applications: EO‑2 may be enforced against nationals who lack a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity; injunctions remain for respondents and those similarly situated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2(c) violates Establishment Clause (improper religious purpose)	Respondents: EO‑2’s primary purpose is to exclude Muslims—campaign statements and the countries’ Muslim majorities show religious animus.	Government: Order is facially neutral and rests on a legitimate national‑security justification; courts should defer under Mandel.	Court granted certiorari and asked parties to brief merits; on stays, Court accepted that Establishment concerns justified injunctions for parties with bona fide U.S. ties but allowed enforcement against unconnected foreigners.
Whether EO‑2 exceeded statutory authority under INA §1182(f)	Respondents (Hawaii): EO‑2 lacks adequate findings that entry of designated classes would be detrimental to U.S. interests, so it exceeds §1182(f).	Government: Presidential determination under §1182(f) is entitled to deference; courts should not second‑guess national‑security judgments.	Ninth Circuit held likely INA violation; Supreme Court granted certiorari and left merits for later, but stayed injunctions as to foreigners without U.S. ties.
Standing of U.S. plaintiffs (Doe, Hawaii, Dr. Elshikh)	Respondents: Plaintiffs and states have concrete injuries from family separations, institutional impacts (students), and associational/harms to affiliates.	Government: Some plaintiffs lack standing; suit may be non‑justiciable for foreign nationals or generalized grievances.	Lower courts found sufficient standing for injunctions; Supreme Court preserved injunctions for similarly situated plaintiffs but limited reach for unconnected foreigners.
Scope and breadth of preliminary injunctions / mootness of §2(c)	Respondents: Nationwide injunctions needed to prevent injury to similarly situated persons and entities.	Government: Injunctions are overbroad; enforcement should be allowed for foreigners with no U.S. ties; §2(c) may have become moot absent Presidential memorandum.	Court narrowed injunctions: §2(c) and §§6(a)/(b) enjoined only as to persons with a credible bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity; all others subject to EO‑2. Court directed merits briefing and consolidation.

Key Cases Cited

Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (judicial review of executive denial of entry is limited where a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason is given)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards require consideration of likelihood of success and balance of equities, including public interest)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standards and equitable balancing for stays pending appeal)
University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (preliminary injunction does not resolve merits but balances equities)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (national security is an urgent, weighty governmental interest)
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) (deference to executive branch on matters implicating national security)
Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (injunctive relief should be no more burdensome than necessary to afford relief to plaintiffs)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (federal courts provide relief only to plaintiffs who have suffered or will imminently suffer actual harm)