President Trump’s “travel bans” have been the linchpin for the “resistance.” After Trump signed his first executive order restricting travel from seven predominately Muslim countries, many individuals who are lawful residents were held up at airports across America. Quickly, the Ninth Circuit stayed the enforcement of this order. In response to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, Trump issued a second order to clean up some of deficiencies of his first order. Namely, EO-2 clarifies that legal residents are not affected by the order.

But advocacy groups soon challenged EO-2. In recent months, the Fourth and the Ninth Circuit upheld injunctions preventing the Trump Administration from implementing EO-2. Soon after these decisions, the Trump Administration petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and asked it to stay the injunctions preventing EO-2 from going into effect.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court gave the Trump Administration what it wanted. Sort of. It stayed the Fourth and Ninth Circuit’s injunctions as it related to individuals who do not have “bona fide relationships” with persons or entities in the U.S. Thus, the Trump Administration was able to implement a milder form of EO-2 in recent weeks.

Justice Thomas, in an opinion joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, noted that he would have allowed all of EO-2 to go into effect. According to Justice Thomas “weighing the Government’s interest in preserving national security against the hardships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry into the country, the balance of the equities favors the Government.” Moreover, Justice Thomas expressed concern that the Court’s “bona fide” relationship test is an unworkable rule destined to spur further litigation.

I am deeply sympathetic to Justice Thomas’s argument that the bona fide relationship test is unworkable. It’s quite a challenge to stop crafty public interest lawyers from engaging in gamesmanship. But the Court’s limited stay of the injunctions is appropriate. After all, many individuals who have clear relations with the United States have already had to go through an excruciating screening process. Stating “national security” shouldn’t be a easy-pass for the government to get what it wants–especially when it’s actions are legally questionable.