Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 86

22 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

mer  Central  Intelligence  Agency  Director  John  Brennan,
and  former  Director  of  National  Intelligence  James  Clap-
per—have advised that the Proclamation and its predeces­
sor orders “do not advance the national-security or foreign
policy interests of the United States, and in fact do serious
harm to those interests.”  Brief for Former National Secu­
rity Officials as Amici Curiae 15 (boldface deleted). 

Moreover,  the  Proclamation  purports  to  mitigate
national-security risks by excluding nationals of countries 
that provide insufficient information to vet their nationals. 
82 Fed. Reg. 45164.  Yet, as plaintiffs explain, the Procla­
mation broadly denies immigrant visas to all nationals of
those  countries,  including  those  whose  admission  would 
likely  not  implicate  these  information  deficiencies  (e.g.,
infants,  or  nationals  of  countries  included  in  the  Procla­
mation who are long-term residents of and traveling from
a country not covered by the Proclamation).  See Brief for 
Respondents  72.  In  addition,  the  Proclamation  permits 
certain nationals from the countries named in the Procla­
mation  to  obtain  nonimmigrant  visas,  which  undermines 
the  Government’s  assertion  that  it  does  not  already  have 
the  capacity  and  sufficient  information  to  vet  these  indi­
viduals adequately.  See 82 Fed. Reg. 45165–45169.

Equally  unavailing  is  the  majority’s  reliance  on  the
Proclamation’s waiver program.  Ante, at 37, and n. 7.  As 
several  amici  thoroughly  explain,  there  is  reason  to  sus­
pect  that  the  Proclamation’s  waiver  program  is  nothing
more  than  a  sham.  See  Brief  for  Pars  Equality  Center 
et al. as Amici Curiae 11, 13–28 (explaining that “waivers
under the Proclamation are vanishingly rare” and report­
ing numerous stories of deserving applicants denied waiv­
ers).  The  remote  possibility  of  obtaining  a  waiver  pursu­
ant  to  an  ad hoc,  discretionary,  and  seemingly  arbitrary 
process  scarcely  demonstrates  that  the  Proclamation  is 
rooted  in  a  genuine  concern  for  national  security.  See 
ante,  at  3–8  (BREYER,  J.,  dissenting)  (outlining  evidence