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?

Improve this question
12
  • 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, 2017 at 19:18
  • 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, 2017 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, 2017 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, 2017 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, 2017 at 23:33

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
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.

Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .