Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Syllabus 

be understood to result from a justification independent of unconsti-
tutional grounds.  Pp. 30–32.

(d) On the few occasions where the Court has struck down a policy
as  illegitimate  under  rational  basis  scrutiny,  a  common  thread  has
been  that  the  laws  at  issue  were  “divorced  from  any  factual  context
from  which  [the  Court]  could  discern  a  relationship  to  legitimate
state interests.”  Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 635.  The Proclama-
tion does not fit that pattern.  It is expressly premised on legitimate
purposes and  says nothing about religion.  The entry restrictions on
Muslim-majority nations are limited to countries that were previous-
ly designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national
security  risks.    Moreover,  the  Proclamation  reflects  the  results  of  a 
worldwide  review  process  undertaken  by  multiple  Cabinet  officials 
and  their  agencies.  Plaintiffs  challenge  the  entry  suspension  based
on  their  perception  of  its  effectiveness  and  wisdom,  but  the  Court 
cannot  substitute  its  own  assessment  for  the  Executive’s  predictive
judgments  on  such  matters.   See  Holder  v.  Humanitarian  Law  Pro-
ject, 561 U. S. 1, 33–34.  

Three  additional  features  of  the  entry  policy  support  the  Govern-
ment’s  claim  of  a  legitimate  national  security  interest.    First,  since 
the  President  introduced  entry  restrictions  in  January  2017,  three 
Muslim-majority  countries—Iraq,  Sudan,  and  Chad—have  been  re-
moved from the list.  Second, for those countries still subject to entry 
restrictions, the Proclamation includes numerous exceptions for vari-
ous categories of foreign nationals.  Finally, the Proclamation creates
a waiver program open to all covered foreign nationals seeking entry 
as  immigrants  or  nonimmigrants.    Under  these  circumstances,  the 
Government  has  set  forth  a  sufficient  national  security  justification
to survive rational basis review.  Pp. 33–38. 

878 F. 3d 662, reversed and remanded. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, 
THOMAS, ALITO, and  GORSUCH,  JJ.,  joined.  KENNEDY,  J.,  and THOMAS, 
J., filed  concurring  opinions.    BREYER,  J., filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in 
which  KAGAN,  J.,  joined.    SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in 
which GINSBURG, J., joined.