Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

37 

Opinion of the Court 

nonimmigrant  entry  for  Somali  nationals).    These  carve-
outs for nonimmigrant visas are substantial: Over the last 
three fiscal years—before the Proclamation was in effect—
the majority of visas issued to nationals from the covered 
countries  were  nonimmigrant  visas.    Brief  for  Petitioners 
57.  The  Proclamation  also  exempts  permanent  resi- 
dents  and  individuals  who  have  been  granted  asylum. 
§§3(b)(i), (vi).

Third, the Proclamation creates a waiver program open 
to  all  covered  foreign  nationals  seeking  entry  as  immi-
grants or nonimmigrants.  According to the Proclamation, 
consular  officers  are  to  consider  in  each  admissibility 
determination  whether  the  alien  demonstrates  that  (1)
denying  entry  would  cause  undue  hardship;  (2)  entry 
would  not  pose  a  threat  to  public  safety;  and  (3)  entry 
would be in the interest of the United States.  §3(c)(i); see
also §3(c)(iv) (listing examples of when a waiver might be 
appropriate, such as if the foreign national seeks to reside
with a close family member, obtain urgent medical care, or 
pursue  significant  business  obligations).    On its  face,  this 
program  is  similar  to  the  humanitarian  exceptions  set
forth  in  President  Carter’s  order  during  the  Iran  hostage
crisis.  See  Exec.  Order  No.  12206,  3  CFR  249;  Public 
Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Jimmy  Carter,  Sanctions 
Against  Iran,  at  611–612  (1980)  (outlining  exceptions).
The Proclamation also directs DHS and the State Depart-
ment to issue guidance elaborating upon the circumstances
that would justify a waiver.7 

—————— 

7 JUSTICE BREYER focuses on only one aspect of our consideration—the
waiver  program  and  other  exemptions  in  the  Proclamation.    Citing
selective  statistics,  anecdotal  evidence,  and  a  declaration  from  unre-
lated litigation, JUSTICE BREYER suggests that not enough individuals are
receiving waivers or exemptions.  Post, at 4–8 (dissenting opinion).  Yet 
even  if  such  an  inquiry  were  appropriate  under  rational  basis  review, 
the  evidence  he  cites  provides  “but  a  piece  of  the  picture,”  post,  at  6, 
and does not affect our analysis.