Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 77

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

13 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

were  inconsistent  with  what  the  Free  Exercise  Clause 
requires”).  It should find the same here. 

Ultimately, what began as a policy explicitly “calling for 
a  total  and  complete  shutdown  of  Muslims  entering  the
United  States”  has  since  morphed  into  a  “Proclamation” 
putatively  based  on  national-security  concerns.    But  this 
new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact:
the  words  of  the  President  and  his  advisers  create  the 
strong  perception  that  the  Proclamation  is  contaminated 
by  impermissible  discriminatory  animus  against  Islam
and its followers. 

II 
Rather  than  defend  the  President’s  problematic  state­
ments, the Government urges this Court to set them aside
and  defer  to  the  President  on  issues  related  to  immigra­
tion  and  national  security.    The  majority  accepts  that
invitation  and  incorrectly  applies  a  watered-down  legal 
standard  in  an  effort  to  short  circuit  plaintiffs’  Establish­
ment Clause claim. 

The majority begins its constitutional analysis by noting 
that this Court, at times, “has engaged in a circumscribed 
judicial  inquiry  when  the  denial  of  a  visa  allegedly  bur­
dens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen.”  Ante, at 
30 (citing Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753 (1972)).  As 
the  majority  notes,  Mandel  held  that  when  the  Executive 
Branch  provides  “a  facially  legitimate  and  bona  fide  rea­
son”  for  denying  a  visa,  “courts  will  neither  look  behind 
the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its 
justification.”  Id.,  at  770.    In  his  controlling  concurrence 
in  Kerry  v.  Din,  576  U. S.  ___  (2015),  JUSTICE  KENNEDY 
applied  Mandel’s  holding  and  elaborated  that  courts  can
“ ‘look  behind’  the  Government’s  exclusion  of ”  a  foreign
national if there is “an affirmative showing of bad faith on
the  part  of  the  consular  officer  who  denied  [the]  visa.” 
Din,  576  U. S.,  at  ___  (opinion  concurring  in  judgment)