Trump. v. International Refugee Assistance Project

Background

These cases arise from Executive Order No. 13780, which suspended entry for nationals of six named countries for 90 days and paused certain refugee admissions. Individuals, a state, and advocacy groups sued and lower courts entered nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking key provisions of the order. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits largely upheld those injunctions, and the Government asked this Court to review and to stay the injunctions while the case proceeds.

Reasoning

The Court granted review and weighed whether to stay the preliminary injunctions while litigation continues. It balanced the hardships faced by U.S. people and entities who have close ties to particular foreign nationals against the Government’s interest in national security. The Court concluded that the lower courts’ injunctions should be narrowed: the order may be enforced against foreign nationals who lack a credible, bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, while the injunctions remain in place for those who can credibly claim close family ties, students admitted to schools, workers with job offers, or other formal documented relationships.

Real world impact

Practically, this means many foreign nationals with no U.S. connection are now subject to the travel pause and some refugee limits, but people with close, documented U.S. ties are protected from exclusion for now. The decision is an interim one: the Court set the case for merits briefing and will decide the underlying legal disputes later. The narrowing is intended to let the Executive complete its internal reviews during the 90-day period.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, would have stayed the injunctions in full and criticized the Court’s partial compromise as likely to cause more litigation and practical difficulties.