Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

36 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

Opinion of the Court 

33–34.6 

Three additional features of the entry policy support the
Government’s  claim  of  a  legitimate  national  security 
interest.  First,  since  the  President  introduced  entry  re-
strictions  in  January  2017,  three  Muslim-majority  coun-
tries—Iraq,  Sudan,  and  Chad—have  been  removed  from 
the list of covered countries.  The Proclamation emphasizes 
that its “conditional restrictions” will remain in force only 
so long as necessary to “address” the identified “inadequa-
cies  and  risks,”  Proclamation  Preamble,  and  §1(h),  and 
establishes  an  ongoing  process  to  engage  covered  nations
and  assess  every  180  days  whether  the  entry  restrictions 
should  be  terminated,  §§4(a),  (b).  In  fact,  in  announcing 
the  termination  of  restrictions  on  nationals  of  Chad,  the 
President also described Libya’s ongoing engagement with
the  State  Department  and  the  steps  Libya  is  taking  “to 
improve  its  practices.”  Proclamation  No.  9723,  83  Fed. 
Reg. 15939.

Second, for those countries that remain subject to entry
restrictions,  the  Proclamation  includes  significant  excep-
tions  for  various  categories  of  foreign  nationals.  The 
policy permits nationals from nearly every covered country
to  travel  to  the  United  States  on  a  variety  of  nonimmi-
grant  visas.    See,  e.g.,  §§2(b)–(c),  (g),  (h)  (permitting  stu-
dent  and  exchange  visitors  from  Iran,  while  restricting
only  business  and  tourist  nonimmigrant  entry  for  nation-
als  of  Libya  and  Yemen,  and  imposing  no  restrictions  on 

—————— 

6 The dissent recycles much of plaintiffs’ §1182(f ) argument to assert
that “Congress has already erected a statutory scheme that fulfills” the 
President’s stated concern about deficient vetting.  Post, at 19–21.  But 
for the reasons set forth earlier, Congress has not in any sense “stepped
into  the  space  and  solved  the  exact  problem.”    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  53. 
Neither  the  existing  inadmissibility  grounds  nor  the  narrow  Visa
Waiver  Program  address  the  failure  of  certain  high-risk  countries  to
provide a minimum baseline of reliable information.  See Part III–B–1, 
supra.