Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 39

34 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

Opinion of the Court 

persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legit-
imate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart 
from  any  religious  hostility,  we  must  accept  that  inde-
pendent justification.

The  Proclamation  is  expressly  premised  on  legitimate
purposes:  preventing  entry  of  nationals  who  cannot  be
adequately  vetted  and  inducing  other  nations  to  improve
their  practices.    The  text  says  nothing  about  religion. 
Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five 
of  the  seven  nations  currently  included  in  the  Proclama-
tion  have  Muslim-majority  populations.    Yet  that  fact 
alone  does  not  support  an  inference  of  religious  hostility, 
given that the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim
population and is limited to countries that were previously 
designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing 
national  security  risks.    See  8  U. S. C.  §1187(a)(12)(A) 
(identifying Syria and state sponsors of terrorism such as
Iran  as  “countr[ies]  or  area[s]  of  concern”  for  purposes  of
administering  the  Visa  Waiver  Program);  Dept.  of  Home-
land  Security,  DHS  Announces  Further  Travel  Re-
strictions  for  the  Visa  Waiver  Program  (Feb.  18,  2016)
(designating  Libya,  Somalia,  and  Yemen  as  additional 
countries of concern); see also Rajah, 544 F. 3d, at 433, n. 
3  (describing  how  nonimmigrant  aliens  from  Iran,  Libya,
Somalia,  Syria,  and  Yemen  were  covered  by  the  National
Security Entry-Exit Registration System). 

The  Proclamation,  moreover,  reflects  the  results  of  a 
worldwide review process undertaken by multiple Cabinet
officials and their agencies.  Plaintiffs seek to discredit the 
findings  of  the  review,  pointing  to  deviations  from  the 
review’s  baseline  criteria  resulting  in  the  inclusion  of
Somalia  and  omission  of  Iraq.    But  as  the  Proclamation 
explains, in each case the determinations were justified by
the distinct conditions in each country.  Although Somalia
generally  satisfies  the  information-sharing  component  of 
the  baseline  criteria,  it  “stands  apart  . . .  in the  degree to