20

On June 26, 2017, the US Supreme Court granted a stay on the preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration's Executive Order 13780.

The Office of the Press Secretary issued a statement on behalf of President Trump saying the decision was unanimous:

Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision ... I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0.

But some people disagree, e.g. @nycsouthpaw.

It wasn't unanimous.

So which is it?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
BurnsBA
  • 1,513
  • 1
  • 9
  • 22
  • 14
    The decision was 6-3. But my understanding was that the dissenting judges wanted to allow the travel ban without any restrictions, while the majority now allowed it only with certain restrictions. One could read this as unanimous in some regard. I couldn't find this in any official court documents though, I don't know where exactly to search for this. – Mad Scientist Jun 26 '17 at 19:18
  • @MadScientist "I couldn't find this in any official court documents though". Did you try looking at the link in my answer? – DavePhD Jun 26 '17 at 19:20
  • 1
    @DavePhD I should have been more precise, I quickly scanned it, but while the information is certainly in there, it's not in a convenient quotable paragraph. I've no experience reading supreme court decisions, and I didn't want to mangle this due to my lack of legal knowledge. – Mad Scientist Jun 26 '17 at 19:26
  • 1
    @MadScientist ok, the main relevant parts are "per curiam" on page 1 and "JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in part and dissenting in part." – DavePhD Jun 26 '17 at 19:29
  • 2
    Both "travel ban" and "muslim ban" are really inaccurate ways of describing Executive Order 13780. Let's refer to things by their name. – Sklivvz Jun 27 '17 at 19:51
  • 2
    @Sklivvz what's in a name? Are aliases not allowed? Can you find nycsouthpaw's name, and would you please change your network profile to your real name? My point is "executive order one three seven eight zero" has almost no recognizability. Both "Muslim ban" and "travel ban" are identifiable terms recently in the news, and perhaps what people would search for. – BurnsBA Jun 27 '17 at 23:33
  • Maybe could pull some language from [the actual order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states) to refer to it? I'm not sure what the best string to grab is, there isn't an easy handle I'm seeing. – Undo Jun 28 '17 at 04:11
  • 1
    @BurnsBA firstly, there are two orders known as travel/muslim ban in the news, whereas the question is about one of them. Secondly, there has been flagging and multiple edits going back and forth between "travel" and "muslim". Hence, I'm cutting the gordian knot and solving the conundrum by removing the nickname altogether. – Sklivvz Jun 28 '17 at 07:32
  • I am separately intruiged why the supreme court decided that this EO wasn't a 'muslim ban' which was the reason that it had been [challenged by Hawaii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780#Hawaii_v._Trump) – icc97 Jun 28 '17 at 09:10
  • @icc97 It didn't decide one way or the other yet. The 6/26/17 decision was just a decision to hear the case, and what should apply in the meanwhile before the actual case is heard. – DavePhD Jun 28 '17 at 12:49
  • @DavePhD Yes, sorry I saw your comment *"the court agrees to later hear an appeal of the lower court decisions which characterize the purpose of the ban as religious."* after I posted that – icc97 Jun 28 '17 at 13:01
  • 1
    @icc97 now the Supreme Court has decided on the merits of the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf – DavePhD Jun 26 '18 at 14:48

1 Answers1

42

This is the full text of the decision: TRUMP v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT directly from the Supreme Court website.

The term:

PER CURIAM

is used by the decision. This means that justices who agree with the decision are not named, but only justices who dissent are named. In this case, there is an aspect of the decision that is unanimous.

The court does not characterize executive order 13780 as a "Muslim Ban". Instead, the decision says "[w]e grant the petitions for certiorari", which means that the court agrees to later hear an appeal of the lower court decisions which characterize the purpose of the ban as religious.

The decision does not completely stay the injunction of the executive order.

The decision only stays the injunction of the executive order as far as it applies to "foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States".

Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented in part, in that they would have stayed the injunction entirely.

So, in summary, it was unanimous that at least the partial stay was appropriate, but three justices wanted the injunction entirely stayed.

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464