Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

Syllabus 

Invoking his authority under 8 U. S. C. §§1182(f) and 1185(a), he de-
termined that certain restrictions were necessary to “prevent the en-
try  of  those  foreign  nationals  about  whom  the  United  States  Gov-
ernment  lacks  sufficient  information”  and  “elicit  improved  identity-
management  and  information-sharing  protocols  and  practices  from 
foreign governments.”  The Proclamation imposes a range of entry re-
strictions  that  vary  based  on  the  “distinct  circumstances”  in  each  of
the eight countries.  It exempts lawful permanent residents and pro-
vides  case-by-case  waivers  under  certain  circumstances.    It  also  di-
rects  DHS  to  assess  on  a  continuing  basis  whether  the  restrictions 
should be modified or continued, and to report to the President every 
180 days.  At the completion of the first such review period, the Pres-
ident  determined  that  Chad  had  sufficiently  improved  its  practices,
and he accordingly lifted restrictions on its nationals.

Plaintiffs—the State of Hawaii, three individuals with foreign rela-
tives affected by the entry suspension, and the Muslim Association of
Hawaii—argue  that  the  Proclamation  violates  the  Immigration  and
Nationality  Act  (INA)  and  the  Establishment  Clause.  The  District 
Court  granted  a  nationwide  preliminary  injunction  barring  enforce-
ment of the restrictions.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that
the  Proclamation  contravened  two  provisions  of  the  INA:  §1182(f),
which authorizes the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or
any  class  of  aliens”  whenever  he  “finds”  that  their  entry  “would  be
detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and §1152(a)(1)(A),
which provides that “no person shall . . . be discriminated against in
the  issuance  of  an  immigrant  visa  because  of  the  person’s  race,  sex, 
nationality,  place  of  birth,  or  place  of  residence.”    The  court  did  not 
reach the Establishment Clause claim.   

Held: 

1. This  Court  assumes  without  deciding  that  plaintiffs’  statutory 
claims are reviewable, notwithstanding consular nonreviewability or 
any other statutory nonreviewability issue.  See Sale v. Haitian Cen-
ters Council, Inc., 509 U. S. 155.  Pp. 8–9.

2. The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion grant-
ed to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the Unit-
ed States.  Pp. 9–24.

(a) By  its  terms,  §1182(f)  exudes  deference  to  the  President  in
every clause.  It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and 
when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on
what  conditions.    It  thus  vests  the  President  with  “ample  power”  to 
impose entry restrictions in addition to  those elsewhere enumerated
in the INA.  Sale, 509 U. S., at 187.  The Proclamation falls well with-
in  this  comprehensive  delegation.    The  sole  prerequisite  set  forth  in
§1182(f) is that the President “find[ ]” that the entry of the covered al-