Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

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

21 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

countries  are  eligible  for  the  Visa  Waiver  Program,  the 
Government considers whether they can satisfy numerous 
criteria—e.g.,  using  electronic,  fraud-resistant  passports, 
§1187(a)(3)(B),  24-hour  reporting  of  lost  or  stolen  pass­
ports,  §1187(c)(2)(D),  and  not  providing  a  safe  haven  for 
terrorists, §1187(a)(12)(D)(iii).  The Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, also
must determine that a country’s inclusion in the program 
will  not  compromise  “the  law  enforcement  and  security
interests of the United States.”  §1187(c)(2)(C).  Eligibility
for  the  program  is  reassessed  on  an  annual  basis.  See 
§1187(a)(12)(D)(iii), 1187(c)(12)(A).  As a result of a recent 
review,  for  example,  the  Executive  decided  in  2016  to
remove  from  the  program  dual  nationals  of  Iraq,  Syria,
Iran, and Sudan.  See Brief for Former National Security 
Officials as Amici Curiae 27. 

Put  simply,  Congress  has  already  erected  a  statutory 

scheme  that  fulfills  the  putative  national-security  inter­
ests the Government now puts forth to justify the Procla­
mation.  Tellingly, the Government remains wholly unable
to  articulate  any  credible  national-security  interest  that
would  go  unaddressed  by  the  current  statutory  scheme
absent  the  Proclamation.    The  Government  also  offers  no 
evidence that this current vetting scheme, which involves 
a highly searching consideration of individuals required to 
obtain visas for entry into the United States and a highly
searching consideration of which countries are eligible for 
inclusion  in  the  Visa  Waiver  Program,  is  inadequate  to 
achieve  the  Proclamation’s  proclaimed  objectives  of  “pre­
venting  entry  of  nationals  who  cannot  be  adequately
vetted  and  inducing  other  nations  to  improve  their  [vet­
ting and information-sharing] practices.”  Ante, at 34. 

For  many  of  these  reasons,  several  former  national-
security  officials  from  both  political  parties—including
former  Secretary  of  State  Madeleine  Albright,  former 
State  Department  Legal  Adviser  John  Bellinger  III,  for­