Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

8 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

Opinion of the Court 

the  Proclamation  exceeds  the  President’s  authority  under 
In  its  view,  that  provision  authorizes  only  a 
§1182(f ). 
“temporary”  suspension  of  entry  in  response  to  “exigen-
cies”  that  “Congress  would  be  ill-equipped  to  address.” 
878 F. 3d 662, 684, 688 (2017).  The court further reasoned 
that  the  Proclamation  “conflicts  with  the  INA’s  finely
reticulated  regulatory  scheme”  by  addressing  “matters  of
immigration  already  passed  upon  by  Congress.”  Id.,  at 
685, 690.  The Ninth Circuit then turned to §1152(a)(1)(A)
and determined that the entry restrictions also contravene 
the prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the 
issuance  of  immigrant  visas.    The  court  did  not  reach 
plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim.

We granted certiorari.  583 U. S. ___ (2018). 

II 
Before  addressing  the  merits  of  plaintiffs’  statutory
claims,  we  consider  whether  we  have  authority  to  do  so. 
The  Government  argues  that  plaintiffs’  challenge  to  the 
Proclamation under the INA is not justiciable.  Relying on
the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, the Government 
contends  that  because  aliens  have  no  “claim  of  right”  to
enter the United States, and because exclusion of aliens is 
“a fundamental act of sovereignty” by the political branches,
review of an exclusion decision “is not within the province
of any court, unless expressly authorized by law.”  United 
States  ex  rel.  Knauff  v.  Shaughnessy,  338  U. S.  537,  542– 
543  (1950).  According  to  the  Government,  that  principle 
barring  review  is  reflected  in  the  INA,  which  sets  forth  a 
comprehensive framework for review of orders of removal, 
but  authorizes  judicial  review  only  for  aliens  physically 
present in the United States.  See Brief for Petitioners 19– 
20 (citing 8 U. S. C. §1252).

The  justiciability  of  plaintiffs’  challenge  under  the  INA 
presents  a  difficult  question.  The  Government  made 
similar arguments that no judicial review was available in