Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

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

33 

Opinion of the Court 

D 

Given  the  standard  of  review,  it  should  come  as  no 
surprise  that  the  Court  hardly  ever  strikes  down  a  policy
as  illegitimate  under  rational  basis  scrutiny.    On  the  few 
occasions  where  we  have  done  so,  a  common  thread  has 
been that the laws at issue lack any purpose other than a 
“bare  . . .  desire  to  harm  a  politically  unpopular  group.” 
Department  of  Agriculture  v.  Moreno,  413  U. S.  528,  534 
(1973).  In  one  case,  we  invalidated  a  local  zoning  ordi-
nance  that  required  a  special  permit  for  group  homes  for 
the intellectually disabled, but not for other facilities such
as fraternity houses or hospitals.  We did so on the ground 
that the city’s stated concerns about (among other things) 
“legal  responsibility”  and  “crowded  conditions”  rested  on
“an  irrational  prejudice”  against  the  intellectually  dis-
abled.  Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 
432,  448–450  (1985)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).
And in another case, this Court overturned a state consti-
tutional amendment that denied gays and lesbians access
to  the  protection  of  antidiscrimination  laws.  The  amend-
ment,  we  held,  was  “divorced  from  any  factual  context
from  which  we  could  discern  a  relationship  to  legitimate
state interests,” and “its sheer breadth [was] so discontin-
uous  with  the  reasons  offered  for  it”  that  the  initiative 
seemed  “inexplicable  by  anything  but  animus.”    Romer  v. 
Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 632, 635 (1996). 

The Proclamation does not fit this pattern.  It cannot be 
said  that  it  is  impossible  to  “discern  a  relationship  to 
legitimate state interests” or that  the policy is “inexplica-
ble by anything but animus.”  Indeed, the dissent can only 
attempt to argue otherwise by refusing to apply anything 
resembling  rational  basis  review.    But  because  there  is 

—————— 

authority  for  its  proposition  that  the  more  free-ranging  inquiry  it

proposes  is  appropriate  in  the  national  security  and  foreign  affairs
 
context.