Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

12 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

Opinion of the Court 

encourage  cooperation  given  each  country’s  distinct  cir-
cumstances,”  while  securing  the  Nation  “until  such  time
as improvements occur.”  Ibid.2 

Plaintiffs  believe  that  these  findings  are  insufficient.
They  argue,  as  an  initial  matter,  that  the  Proclamation 
fails to provide a persuasive rationale for why nationality 
alone renders the covered foreign nationals a security risk.
And  they  further  discount  the  President’s  stated  concern
about  deficient  vetting  because  the  Proclamation  allows
many  aliens  from  the  designated  countries  to  enter  on 
nonimmigrant visas.

Such  arguments  are  grounded  on  the  premise  that 
§1182(f ) not only requires the President to make a finding
that  entry  “would  be  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
United States,” but also to explain that finding with suffi-
cient  detail  to  enable  judicial  review.  That  premise  is
questionable.  See  Webster  v.  Doe,  486  U. S.  592,  600 
(1988)  (concluding  that  a  statute  authorizing  the  CIA 
Director  to  terminate  an  employee  when  the  Director
“shall  deem  such  termination  necessary  or  advisable  in
the  interests  of  the  United  States”  forecloses  “any  mean-
ingful  judicial  standard  of  review”).  But  even  assuming
that some form of review is appropriate, plaintiffs’ attacks
on  the  sufficiency  of  the  President’s  findings  cannot  be
sustained.  The  12-page  Proclamation—which  thoroughly
describes the process, agency evaluations, and recommen-
dations  underlying  the  President’s  chosen  restrictions—is 
more detailed than any prior order a President has issued 
under  §1182(f ).  Contrast  Presidential  Proclamation  No. 
6958, 3 CFR 133 (1996) (President Clinton) (explaining in 
one  sentence  why  suspending  entry  of  members  of  the 

—————— 

2 The  Proclamation  states  that  it  does  not  disclose  every  ground  for 
the  country-specific  restrictions  because  “[d]escribing  all  of  those
reasons publicly . . . would cause serious damage to the national security 
of the United States, and many such descriptions are classified.”  §1(j).