Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 36

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

31 

Opinion of the Court 

tion” against the asserted constitutional interests of U. S.
citizens.  Id., at 770. 

The  principal  dissent  suggests  that  Mandel  has  no 
bearing  on  this  case,  post,  at  14,  and  n. 5  (opinion  of 
SOTOMAYOR, J.) (hereinafter the dissent), but our opinions
have  reaffirmed  and  applied  its  deferential  standard  of 
review across different contexts and constitutional claims. 
In Din, JUSTICE KENNEDY reiterated that “respect for the 
political  branches’  broad  power  over  the  creation  and 
administration of the immigration system” meant that the 
Government  need  provide  only  a  statutory  citation  to 
explain a visa denial.  576 U. S., at ___ (opinion concurring 
in judgment) (slip op., at 6).  Likewise in Fiallo, we applied 
Mandel  to  a  “broad  congressional  policy”  giving  immigra-
tion  preferences  to  mothers  of  illegitimate  children.    430 
U. S., at 795.  Even though the statute created a “categori-
cal” entry classification that discriminated on the basis of 
sex  and  legitimacy,  post,  at  14,  n. 5,  the  Court  concluded 
that “it is not the judicial role in cases of this sort to probe
and  test  the  justifications”  of  immigration  policies.    430 
U. S.,  at  799  (citing  Mandel,  408  U. S.,  at  770).    Lower 
courts  have  similarly  applied  Mandel  to  broad  executive 
action.  See  Rajah  v.  Mukasey,  544  F.  3d  427,  433,  438– 
439  (CA2  2008)  (upholding  National  Security  Entry-Exit 
Registration System instituted after September 11, 2001). 
Mandel’s  narrow  standard  of  review  “has  particular
force”  in  admission  and  immigration  cases  that  overlap 
with “the area of national security.”  Din, 576 U. S., at ___ 
(KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 3).  For 
one,  “[j]udicial  inquiry  into  the  national-security  realm 
raises concerns for the separation of powers” by intruding
on  the  President’s  constitutional  responsibilities  in  the 
area of foreign affairs.  Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2017) (slip op., at 19) (internal quotation marks omitted).
For  another,  “when  it  comes  to  collecting  evidence  and 
drawing inferences” on questions of national security, “the