Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

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

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 17–965 
_________________ 

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 

STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HAWAII, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 26, 2018] 

JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAGAN  joins,

dissenting. 

The  question  before  us  is  whether  Proclamation  No.
9645 is lawful.  If its promulgation or content was signifi-
cantly  affected  by  religious  animus  against  Muslims,  it 
would violate the relevant statute or the First Amendment 
itself.  See  8  U. S. C.  §1182(f)  (requiring  “find[ings]”  that 
persons  denied  entry  “would  be  detrimental  to  the  inter-
ests of the United States”); Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, 
Inc.  v.  Hialeah,  508  U. S.  520  (1993)  (First  Amendment); 
Masterpiece  Cakeshop,  Ltd.  v.  Colorado  Civil  Rights 
Comm’n,  584  U. S.  ___  (2018)  (same);  post,  at  2–4 
(SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  dissenting).  If,  however,  its  sole  ratio 
decidendi  was  one  of  national  security,  then  it  would  be 
unlikely  to  violate  either  the  statute  or  the  Constitution. 
Which  is  it?    Members  of  the  Court  principally  disagree 
about  the  answer  to  this  question,  i.e.,  about  whether  or 
the  extent  to  which  religious  animus  played  a  significant 
role in the Proclamation’s promulgation or content. 

In  my  view,  the  Proclamation’s  elaborate  system  of 
exemptions  and  waivers  can  and  should  help  us  answer 
this  question.  That  system  provides  for  case-by-case 
consideration of persons who may qualify for visas despite
the  Proclamation’s  general  ban.  Those  persons  include
lawful  permanent  residents,  asylum  seekers,  refugees,