Trump. v. International Refugee Assistance Project
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Trump administration's travel ban case and, in the meantime, let the 90-day entry ban and refugee suspension take effect against foreign nationals with no real connection to the United States.
The Court left the lower courts' injunctions in place for people who could show a genuine family or business tie to someone in the United States, striking a temporary compromise between blocking the ban entirely and letting it apply to everyone until the justices could rule on the merits.
“So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.”
Explaining why the ban could apply to foreign nationals with no U.S. ties.
How it got here: District courts blocked the order nationwide; the Fourth and Ninth Circuits largely upheld those injunctions; the government asked the Supreme Court to take the cases and pause the injunctions.
The Case in Depth
What happened
President Trump issued an executive order suspending entry of nationals from six countries for 90 days and pausing the refugee program for 120 days, citing terrorism concerns. Groups and individuals with family members and students affected by the order — including a U.S. resident whose Iranian wife sought entry and the State of Hawaii on behalf of admitted foreign students — sued, arguing the order was really aimed at excluding Muslims and exceeded the President's immigration powers.
The question before the Court
Could the Trump administration enforce its travel ban on visitors from six mostly Muslim countries while courts kept fighting over whether the ban was legal?
Why it matters
Travelers, students, and refugees from the six designated countries who lacked any real tie to a U.S. person or organization could be denied entry right away, while those with close family members or firm job or school offers in the United States remained protected. Immigration officials had to start sorting entrants by this new "bona fide relationship" standard immediately.
What changes now
The Court granted certiorari and set a briefing schedule so the case could be argued in the fall, also directing the parties to address whether the dispute over the entry ban had become moot once the 90-day suspension period ran out. Until then, the partial stay meant the ban and refugee suspension applied to foreign nationals without qualifying U.S. ties, while those with bona fide relationships remained protected by the lower-court injunctions.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the travel ban is constitutional or lawful under immigration statutes — that question was reserved for full briefing and argument. It also does not resolve whether the case might become moot once the 90-day suspension period expired, a question the Court asked the parties to address separately.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent in part — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas agreed the injunctions should be stayed but would have stayed them completely rather than carving out an exception for people with a 'bona fide relationship' to someone in the United States. He argued the government met the strict test for a full stay, including a strong likelihood of success and irreparable harm to national security. He warned the Court's partial compromise lacked any basis in a certified class of plaintiffs and would create confusion, forcing officials and lower courts to litigate endlessly over what counts as a qualifying relationship.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court treated this as a request to stay lower-court injunctions rather than to grant one, meaning it had to weigh the equities itself, balancing the harm to the government against the harm to the people challenging the order and the public interest.
- The Court found that the individuals and organizations who sued had shown real, concrete harm because the ban would keep out specific family members or admitted students they had genuine relationships with, so the injunctions protecting them were left in place.
- For foreign nationals with no such connection to anyone in the United States, the Court found the claimed harm far less concrete, since a foreign national with no U.S. ties has no constitutional right to enter the country.
- Weighed against that thin harm, the Court found the government's interest in enforcing its national-security screening measure at 'its peak' when there was no U.S. connection at all, tipping the balance toward letting the ban apply to that group.
- Applying this same balance to the refugee provisions, the Court allowed the refugee suspension and the reduced refugee cap to apply to refugees without a qualifying U.S. tie, while protecting those with a genuine sponsoring relationship in the United States.