Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

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

35 

Opinion of the Court 

which  [it]  lacks  command  and  control  of  its  territory.”
Proclamation §2(h)(i).  As for Iraq, the Secretary of Home-
land Security determined that entry restrictions were not 
warranted  in  light  of  the  close  cooperative  relationship
between  the  U. S.  and  Iraqi  Governments  and  the  coun-
try’s key role in combating terrorism in the region.  §1(g).
It  is,  in  any  event,  difficult  to  see  how  exempting  one  of 
the largest predominantly Muslim countries in the region 
from  coverage  under  the  Proclamation  can  be  cited  as 
evidence of animus toward Muslims. 

The  dissent  likewise  doubts  the  thoroughness  of  the
multi-agency  review  because  a  recent  Freedom  of  Infor-
mation Act request shows that the final DHS report “was
a  mere  17  pages.”    Post,  at  19.  Yet  a  simple  page  count 
offers  little  insight  into  the  actual  substance  of  the  final 
report,  much  less  predecisional  materials  underlying  it.
See 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(5) (exempting deliberative materials
from FOIA disclosure).

More  fundamentally,  plaintiffs  and  the  dissent  chal-
lenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its 
effectiveness and wisdom.  They suggest that the policy is
overbroad  and  does  little  to  serve  national  security  inter-
ests.  But we cannot substitute our own assessment for the 
Executive’s  predictive  judgments  on  such  matters,  all  of 
which “are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of 
prophecy.”  Chicago  &  Southern  Air  Lines,  Inc.  v.  Water-
man S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 111 (1948); see also Regan 
v.  Wald,  468  U. S.  222,  242–243  (1984)  (declining  invita-
tion  to  conduct  an  “independent  foreign  policy  analysis”).
While  we  of  course  “do  not  defer  to  the  Government’s 
reading of the First Amendment,” the Executive’s evalua-
tion  of  the  underlying  facts  is  entitled  to  appropriate 
weight,  particularly  in  the  context  of  litigation  involving 
“sensitive  and  weighty  interests  of  national  security  and
foreign affairs.”  Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S., at